Washington, D.C. has become the epicenter of a fierce national debate after President Donald Trump ordered a sweeping federal takeover of the city’s police department, deploying hundreds of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officers to patrol the streets. The move, justified by the White House as a response to violent crime and carjackings, has triggered a powerful backlash among local residents, city officials, and legal experts, all while raising profound questions about the limits of presidential power and the future of home rule in the nation’s capital.
According to a Washington Post-Schar School poll conducted from August 14 to August 17, 2025, the overwhelming majority of D.C. residents—79 percent—oppose Trump’s decision to federalize the Metropolitan Police Department and send in the National Guard and FBI. Of those surveyed, 69 percent said they were “strongly” opposed, and another 10 percent “somewhat” opposed the move. Only 17 percent expressed support, with just 9 percent “strongly” approving and 8 percent “somewhat” in favor. About 4 percent said they had no opinion. The poll surveyed 604 residents and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.
President Trump has repeatedly defended his actions. At a recent White House event, he declared, “We went from the most unsafe place anywhere to a place that now people, friends are calling me up, Democrats are calling me up, and they’re saying, ‘Sir, I want to thank you. My wife and I went out to dinner last night for the first time in four years, and Washington, DC, is safe. And you did that in four days.’” Yet, city data paints a different picture. Violent crime, according to local statistics, is at a 30-year low, and a majority of D.C. residents—54 percent—now believe the city’s crime problem is improving, up from just 29 percent earlier in the year. Only 31 percent currently describe crime as an “extremely” or “very” serious problem, a significant drop from 50 percent in the spring.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has touted the results of its crackdown. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on August 20 that “we have now made over 550 arrests in Washington, DC and have taken 76 illegal firearms off the streets—saving lives.” Bondi also publicized a $500 reward for information leading to additional arrests. Yet critics argue that the federal law enforcement surge has focused on low-crime, affluent, or tourist-heavy neighborhoods, raising questions about both its necessity and its impact.
For many D.C. residents, the federal presence has brought not reassurance, but anxiety. More than half of those polled reported noticing the increased number of federal officers and troops, and 61 percent of those said they actually feel less safe as a result. The city has witnessed the arrival of National Guard units from at least five other states, with some troops openly armed as they patrol commercial corridors and set up checkpoints. The Justice Department also announced a probe into the city’s crime data in the same week as the takeover, adding another layer of federal scrutiny.
Local officials have been outspoken in their opposition. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser criticized the deployment, stating, “This doesn’t make sense. You know it doesn’t make sense. The numbers on the ground in the District don’t support a thousand people from other states coming to Washington, D.C. You know that.” About half of residents polled believe Bowser should do even more to oppose Trump’s actions, while 30 percent say she is handling things appropriately. The mayor’s approval rating remains steady at 53 percent, and 54 percent of residents rate the Metropolitan Police Department as doing a good or excellent job.
Underlying the controversy is a complex legal and political landscape. The 1973 Home Rule Act grants the president authority to command the D.C. National Guard and to use the city’s police for federal purposes during emergencies—but only for up to 30 days without Congressional approval. Trump’s executive order of August 11 declared a “crime emergency” and invoked these powers, with the initial window set to expire on September 10, unless Congress passes a joint resolution to extend it. Trump has already signaled his intention to seek long-term extensions, telling reporters, “We’re going to do this very quickly, but we’re going to want extensions.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told NPR last week that “we will reevaluate and reassess and make further decisions after this 30-day period is up.”
Legal challenges are mounting. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb has sued the Trump administration to block what he calls a “hostile takeover” after federal officials attempted to replace the city’s police chief. In an emergency hearing, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes suggested she would grant Schwalb’s request unless the Justice Department revised its plans, stating, “I still do not understand on what basis the president … can say, ‘You, police department, can’t do anything unless I say you can.’ That cannot be the reading of the statute.” Further hearings are expected as the legal battle unfolds.
The political divide over the takeover is stark. Many Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have embraced Trump’s efforts, arguing that crime in D.C. warrants a robust federal response. “Give Trump a third term, give him a Peace Prize, and let him run D.C. as long as he wants,” Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee tweeted, despite the constitutional two-term limit for presidents. On the other hand, Democrats in Congress and local government have decried the move as an attack on democracy and home rule. Several House Democrats have introduced a resolution to terminate Trump’s federalization of D.C.’s police, though such an effort faces long odds in a Republican-controlled Congress.
Public opinion may ultimately prove decisive. Mark Rozell, dean of George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government, observed, “A federalized takeover of any aspect of a city’s operations will naturally create a backlash, and that is clearly happening here. Residents are saying it is not as bad as the president claims, and they want to reclaim the image of their city against a presidential narrative that is tarnishing D.C.’s reputation.”
Residents also have strong views on what would actually reduce violent crime. Majorities favor increased economic opportunities in poor neighborhoods (77 percent), stricter national gun laws (70 percent), more local police officers patrolling communities (63 percent), and the use of outreach workers to resolve disputes (57 percent). By contrast, only 20 percent believe that Trump’s actions will reduce violent crime, while 65 percent think they will not.
The uncertain legal and political future of the takeover has left D.C. in limbo. As experts told NPR, there is scant precedent for such a broad assertion of federal power over the city’s police, and the courts, Congress, or overwhelming public disapproval could ultimately decide how long the federal occupation lasts. For now, the city remains under a heightened federal presence, with its residents voicing clear opposition and anxiously awaiting the next chapter in this extraordinary saga.
