Washington, D.C. found itself at the center of a historic and contentious legal battle on Friday, August 15, 2025, as the city sued to block President Donald Trump’s unprecedented federal takeover of its police department. The move, which escalated earlier in the week with the deployment of National Guard troops and the appointment of a federal official as the emergency head of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), has ignited fierce debate over the limits of presidential power, the autonomy of the nation’s capital, and the future of law enforcement in the city.
The crisis began to unfold publicly on Monday, August 11, when President Trump announced both the deployment of the National Guard and a federal takeover of the city’s police force, vowing, as reported by the Associated Press, “to take our capital back.” The Pentagon confirmed on Thursday, August 14, that all 800 Army and Air National Guard troops ordered to the capital had been mobilized. According to Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson, these troops would “assist the DC Metropolitan Police Department and federal law enforcement partners with monument security, community safety patrols, protecting federal facilities and officers, and traffic control posts.” The troops, equipped with protective gear but with weapons locked away in the armory, were tasked with serving as a visible deterrent and could only temporarily detain individuals to prevent imminent harm.
As the weekend approached, the city’s streets bore the marks of this new federal presence. National Guard troops watched over landmarks, Humvees were stationed at Union Station, and federal agents—ranging from DEA officers to Secret Service—patrolled popular nightlife areas and sports venues. According to a White House official cited by AP, more than 1,750 federal law enforcement personnel had joined the operation by Thursday night, resulting in 33 arrests, including 15 migrants without permanent legal status and others wanted for serious offenses such as murder and rape.
The legal and political stakes came to a head on Friday afternoon as the District sought a temporary restraining order in federal court to prevent the sidelining of Police Chief Pamela Smith. Chief Smith, in a court filing, warned, “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.” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, signaled skepticism about the administration’s authority, stating, “The way I read the statute, the president can ask, the mayor must provide, but the president can’t control.”
The Trump administration, represented in court by attorney Yaakov Roth, argued that the president possesses broad authority to determine the nature of police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, especially in light of a recent immigration order. This position was codified late Thursday when U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued an order installing Drug Enforcement Administration head Terry Cole as the new executive in charge of Washington’s police department. Bondi’s order rescinded previous MPD directives that had limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities, mandating that all new police directives now require Cole’s approval.
The legal challenge from the city was spearheaded by District Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who argued that the federal takeover is illegal and would “wreak operational havoc” on the city’s law enforcement. Schwalb, in a memo to Chief Smith, maintained, “members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor.” He reiterated this stance in a letter to Smith, writing, “It is my opinion that the Bondi Order is unlawful, and that you are not legally obligated to follow it.”
Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, was quick to push back against the federal intervention. On August 14, she posted on social media, “We have followed the law... there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.” The city’s leadership, along with many residents and advocates, saw the move as an attack on local self-governance—a principle enshrined since the Home Rule Act of 1973, which allows D.C. to elect its own mayor and city council. Trump is the first president to assert direct control over the city’s police force since the law’s passage. While the president’s authority is limited to 30 days without congressional approval, Trump has indicated he might seek to extend this period.
The backdrop to the federal intervention is a heated national debate over crime and immigration. Republican politicians have repeatedly accused Washington of being overrun by crime, plagued by homelessness, and poorly managed. However, as reported by AFP and AP, police data show that violent crime in D.C. actually dropped significantly between 2023 and 2024—a trend that runs counter to the administration’s narrative of a public safety crisis. The Justice Department, under Bondi, justified the takeover by citing concerns over the city’s so-called “sanctuary policies,” which limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The intervention has left immigrant communities and their advocates scrambling for guidance. Anusce Sanai, associate legal director for the nonprofit Ayuda, told AP, “We are triaging how to advise clients and the community at large. Even with the most anti-immigrant administration, we would always tell our clients that they must call the police, that they should call the police. But now we find ourselves that we have to be very careful on what we advise.”
On the ground, the atmosphere in the city has grown tense but also defiant. More than 100 protesters gathered in front of police headquarters on Friday, chanting “Protect home rule!” and waving signs that read “Resist!” Meanwhile, volunteers worked to help homeless people leave long-standing encampments, though their destinations were often uncertain. Despite the heavy federal presence, some residents, like lifelong Washingtonian Anthony Leak, remained unfazed. Leak, who attended a Nationals game on Thursday, remarked, “I always feel safe in every quadrant and every ward of this city.” He noted that the federal agents’ presence didn’t seem to change the lively, sometimes rowdy scene of sports fans and bars.
This is not the first time President Trump has deployed federal forces in the face of local resistance. Earlier in June, similar moves were made in Los Angeles, where the National Guard and Marines were sent to quell unrest following immigration enforcement raids—marking the first time since 1965 that a U.S. president deployed the National Guard against a state governor’s wishes. In Washington, the National Guard reports directly to the president, bypassing the need for federalization required in other states.
As the legal battle continues to play out in the courts and on the streets, Washingtonians and observers across the nation are left to grapple with the implications of this extraordinary assertion of federal power over local law enforcement. The outcome of this standoff may set a precedent for the balance between federal authority and local autonomy for years to come.