On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, the political and public safety landscape in Washington, D.C. shifted yet again as Mayor Muriel Bowser issued a sweeping new order outlining the city’s future cooperation with federal law enforcement. This move came as President Donald Trump’s controversial federal takeover of the District’s police force, launched last month under the banner of a public safety emergency, neared its legal expiration date. The mayor’s order, which took effect immediately and has no set end date, signals a commitment to ongoing collaboration with federal agencies while attempting to reassert local control and calm a city rattled by weeks of heightened law enforcement presence and political wrangling.
According to Nexstar Media, members of the House Republican Study Committee convened Tuesday afternoon to address Trump’s police intervention in the nation’s capital. The president’s deployment of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officials last month was framed as a necessary crackdown on crime, a move that drew both praise and sharp criticism across the political spectrum. Trump, for his part, has floated proposals to not only extend the D.C. takeover beyond the initial 30-day window but also to expand similar efforts nationwide and push for a sweeping federal crime bill.
Mayor Bowser’s order, as reported by multiple outlets including Time and local D.C. news sources, directs city officials to “ensure coordination with federal law enforcement to the maximum extent allowable by law within the District.” The order establishes the Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center, designed to coordinate efforts between D.C. police and federal agents. Notably, while the order lists a variety of law enforcement agencies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is pointedly omitted—a detail that has not gone unnoticed by local advocacy groups and national observers alike.
“Violent crime in the District has noticeably decreased” since the federalization of the city’s police force, Bowser acknowledged in her order, echoing claims made by the Trump administration. The White House, in a statement delivered by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, celebrated the results: “President Trump’s efforts to crack down on crime in D.C. have yielded tremendous results in such a short time—violent crime has plummeted, and dangerous criminals are being removed from the streets every single night. The Trump administration is grateful to continue partnering with Mayor Bowser to make D.C. the safest city in the country.”
Trump himself took to Truth Social on Monday, September 1, to declare D.C. a “crime free zone,” publicly praising Bowser for her cooperation. Administration officials have pointed to more than 1,000 arrests in the weeks since the takeover began, touting these numbers as proof of the operation’s effectiveness. Yet, as Time and other outlets have reported, some experts and local Democrats remain skeptical, arguing that the president’s strategy is unlikely to offer a lasting solution to the city’s crime challenges. In fact, violent crime in D.C. was already trending downward before the federal intervention, a point that critics have repeatedly raised.
The legal framework for Trump’s intervention is rooted in the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which allows the president to take control of the city’s police force for up to 30 days in an emergency. That window is set to close on September 10, unless both chambers of Congress pass a joint resolution to extend the operation. The mayor’s new order, however, ensures that federal law enforcement will remain a visible presence in the District even after the president’s direct authority over the police expires.
Bowser’s directive also includes specific requests regarding the conduct of federal officers: they are asked to wear identification but not masks while operating in D.C. streets—an apparent nod to concerns about transparency and accountability that have surfaced during the federal surge. The D.C. police union endorsed the mayor’s order, underscoring a rare moment of consensus in an otherwise fractious debate.
Meanwhile, the national implications of Trump’s approach to urban crime are coming into sharper focus. As reported by Time, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration violated an 1878 law when it deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles earlier in the summer. In Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot has ordered city departments not to cooperate if the president sends in federal troops, despite Trump’s public insistence that Chicago is “next” on his list. “We’re going to do it anyway,” Trump told reporters from the Oval Office, signaling a willingness to override local opposition.
On Capitol Hill, the Republican-controlled House is moving quickly to cement elements of Trump’s strategy into law. Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) announced plans to introduce two bills: the Make D.C. Safe Again Act, which would extend the crime emergency for six months, and the Keep Offenders Off Our Streets Act, aimed at prohibiting cashless bail in D.C.—a policy Trump wants to see replicated nationwide. At least ten other bills targeting D.C. are under consideration, including proposals to restrict camping on public property, make it easier to charge juveniles as adults, give the president the power to appoint the D.C. attorney general, and increase congressional oversight of local laws. Representative August Pfluger (R-Texas) and other Republicans unveiled legislation to prevent the D.C. Council from barring the public and press from their meetings. “Congress must take next step and use our Article I powers,” Pfluger declared. “We cannot and will not allow D.C. to fall into a hellscape again. When the local government fails, it’s our constitutional duty to act.”
Not everyone in D.C. is on board with the mayor’s approach. Progressive groups and more than 100 organizations—including churches and unions—sent Bowser a letter Tuesday urging her to push back harder against the White House. The mayor has faced mounting criticism from residents who view her cooperation with Trump as a betrayal of the city’s autonomy and values. Bowser, for her part, has sought to chart a middle course, publicly thanking the administration for the reduction in crime while also voicing reservations about the long-term efficacy and appropriateness of a federalized law enforcement approach. Just days before issuing her new order, she remarked that the increased presence of ICE agents and National Guard troops was “not working.”
As the political and legal battles continue, one thing is clear: the future of policing and public safety in Washington, D.C. remains deeply contested, with implications that extend far beyond the city’s borders. Whether the current experiment in federal-local cooperation will serve as a model or a cautionary tale is a question that only time—and perhaps Congress—will answer.
