In a tumultuous week for Washington, DC, the city’s police department found itself at the center of a fierce battle between local autonomy and federal authority—one that’s reverberating through the nation’s political landscape as the 2025 midterm elections approach. The controversy began when Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a sweeping order last Thursday, August 14, 2025, placing the capital’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under the control of DEA Administrator Terrance Cole, newly appointed as “emergency police commissioner.” This move marked the latest escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to assert direct control over DC’s law enforcement, citing a declared crime emergency and a hardline approach to immigration enforcement.
But just a day later, after a tense federal court hearing, Bondi pulled back—at least partially. On Friday, August 15, she issued a revised order restoring formal control of the MPD to Chief Pamela Smith, but with a significant caveat: the city’s police would still have to answer to the Trump administration, with all directives funneled through Mayor Muriel Bowser. The new arrangement, hammered out after encouragement from federal district Judge Ana Reyes for both sides to compromise, did little to quell the storm of legal and political protest that followed.
“He’s going to have to go through the Mayor,” Judge Reyes said during Friday’s hearing, as reported by CNN. Yet, as many DC officials and observers noted, the substance of federal control remained largely intact—just with a new bureaucratic layer.
DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb wasted no time in challenging the legality of Bondi’s initial order, filing suit against the Trump administration. Schwalb argued that the Home Rule Act, which governs the District’s autonomy, strictly limits when and how the president can request MPD services. “The Home Rule charter and the Home Rule Act is very clear with respect to when the president can request limited services of MPD—limited by time, limited by emergency circumstances and limited for federal purposes,” Schwalb told reporters after Friday's hearing, according to CNN. “And in all cases, those services must be requested to the mayor to be provided by the chief of police. Not a hostile takeover of our police.”
Schwalb went further in a letter to Chief Smith, declaring, “It is my opinion that the Bondi order is unlawful, and that you are not legally obligated to follow it.” He outlined that the act “does not authorize the President, or his delegee, to remove or replace the Chief of Police; to alter the chain of command within MPD; to demand services directly from you, MPD, or anyone other than the Mayor, to rescind or suspend MPD orders or directives; or to set the general enforcement priorities of MPD or otherwise determine how the District pursues purely local law enforcement. The Bondi Order is, therefore, ultra vires.”
Chief Pamela Smith, for her part, issued a stark warning in a court filing, saying the federal takeover placed both officers and residents “at grave risk.” In her words, “In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive.” She added, “It is placing the lives of MPD officers and District residents at grave risk.” Smith also revealed she had no prior knowledge of President Trump’s plan to assume control over the local police force until he announced it at a press conference on Monday, August 11.
Mayor Bowser, who has long sought to ensure that any federal law enforcement surge truly benefits the city, struck a more combative tone this week, characterizing the federal takeover as an “authoritarian push.” Her concerns were echoed by other city leaders, including DC City Council member Christina Henderson, who wrote on social media, “Respectfully, the Attorney General does not have the authority to revoke laws.”
The dispute over control of the MPD is not just about policing but also about immigration. Bondi’s order specifically directed the department to abandon a directive signed by Chief Smith earlier on August 14 that had limited officers’ ability to share information with federal immigration officials. Bondi also instructed Mayor Bowser to rescind two additional MPD policies protecting undocumented migrants, including one that prevented officers from arresting individuals solely on federal immigration warrants. According to CNN, these moves align with the Trump administration’s broader goal of dismantling sanctuary city protections in the capital. “DC will not remain a sanctuary city actively shielding criminal aliens,” Bondi declared during an interview on Fox News.
The controversy has not played out in a vacuum. As MSNBC reported in its August 18 coverage, the Trump administration has aggressively pushed the crime issue ahead of the 2025 midterm elections, framing federal intervention in DC as a necessary response to rising crime and lawlessness. Democrats, meanwhile, have struggled to counter the message, with the federal-local clash over the MPD providing fresh fodder for partisan debate.
Amid the political maneuvering, real-world consequences have been felt on DC’s streets. MSNBC highlighted a reporter’s video showing agents violently tackling and detaining a moped driver in the city—an incident that underscored the heightened tensions and public unease surrounding the increased federal law enforcement presence. The broadcast included multiple discussions about the implications of federal intervention, with some commentators warning that such tactics may deepen mistrust between residents and law enforcement, while others insisted that decisive action was needed to restore order.
President Trump’s decision to federalize DC’s police and appoint Cole as interim federal commissioner was, according to administration officials, a response to what they described as a crime emergency and the need to enforce federal immigration laws more rigorously. Bondi’s actions made clear that the federal police takeover would go hand-in-hand with the administration’s hardline immigration enforcement goals. Justice Department officials, as cited by CNN, believed that Chief Smith’s earlier directive was meant to reinforce sanctuary city policies that the DOJ had long vowed to dismantle.
For many in DC, the week’s events have reignited longstanding debates over the city’s lack of full self-governance. The Home Rule Act, passed in 1973, granted the District limited autonomy but left ultimate authority with Congress and, in certain circumstances, the president. The current standoff has exposed the vulnerability of DC’s home rule arrangement, with local leaders and residents once again forced to confront the reality that their autonomy can be curtailed by federal fiat.
As the legal battle moves forward and the political stakes rise, the future of policing in the nation’s capital remains uncertain. What’s clear is that the struggle over control of the MPD is about much more than law enforcement—it’s a proxy for deeper questions about democracy, representation, and the balance of power between local communities and the federal government. With the 2025 midterms looming, those questions are unlikely to fade from the national conversation anytime soon.
