President Donald Trump’s latest move to assert federal control over Washington, D.C. has ignited a fierce political and legal battle, drawing sharp criticism from local leaders, congressional Democrats, and civil rights advocates. In a week marked by escalating tensions, Trump declared a crime emergency in the nation’s capital, federalizing the city’s police force and dispatching National Guard troops into its streets. The decision, announced on August 11, 2025, was justified by Trump under a provision of the 1973 Home Rule Act, which allows the federal government to assume temporary authority over the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for up to 30 days—a period Trump has already signaled he intends to extend.
This unprecedented federalization has not gone unchallenged. According to Roll Call, House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin, Oversight Committee ranking member Robert Garcia, and D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced a joint resolution on August 15, 2025, seeking to terminate Trump’s emergency takeover of the MPD. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland announced plans to introduce a Senate version of the measure. Yet, with Republicans holding majorities in both chambers, the resolution faces daunting odds—even if it passed, it would require Trump’s signature to become law.
Trump’s justification for the takeover hinges on claims of rampant lawlessness and chaos in D.C., narratives he has repeatedly amplified in public statements. However, data from the FBI and the MPD paints a very different picture. As reported by American Oversight, D.C.’s crime rate has plummeted to its lowest level in nearly three decades, with a steady decline over the past two years from a peak in 2023. This statistical reality has led many critics to denounce the president’s actions as political theater, rather than a genuine response to public safety concerns.
“No emergency exists in D.C. that the president did not create himself, and he is not using the D.C. Police for federal purposes, as required by law,” Norton stated, calling Trump’s actions “among the most egregious attacks on D.C. home rule in decades.” Raskin went further, suggesting the president’s focus on D.C. crime is a calculated distraction from other controversies, including his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and his refusal to release related files. “The only emergency here is a lawless president experiencing a growing public relations emergency,” Raskin said in a statement on Friday, as quoted by Roll Call.
Local officials have responded with alarm and defiance. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser condemned Trump’s actions as an “authoritarian push” and an “intrusion on our autonomy.” D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit challenging the federal takeover, arguing that it “abuses its limited, temporary authority under the Home Rule Act, infringing on the District’s right to self-governance and putting the safety of DC residents and visitors at risk.” Schwalb described the move as “the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced.”
Trump’s crackdown has targeted some of the city’s most vulnerable residents. According to American Oversight, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that unhoused individuals refusing to leave D.C. would face fines or jail time—a policy that advocates say is unworkable given the limited availability of shelter beds. “This is not about preventing crime, it’s about political theater and federal control,” Clinique Chapman, chief executive of D.C. Justice Lab, told The New York Times. “Young Black boys will bear the brunt of this, as they are the most likely to be stopped, to be questioned, to just really encounter the police interactions.”
The move to federalize D.C. policing is not an isolated incident. Trump has threatened to extend similar crackdowns to other major cities—New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, and Oakland—all led by Black Democratic mayors. In June 2025, he authorized the deployment of National Guard and Marine troops to Los Angeles to suppress protests, despite objections from local and state officials. Earlier this year, the administration sent thousands of military troops to the southern border in another controversial display of force.
Meanwhile, the administration’s aggressive posture has extended beyond policing. In a related development last weekend, Trump ousted IRS Commissioner Billy Long, a former Republican congressman, after Long reportedly raised concerns about the agency’s data-sharing agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to American Oversight, Long’s removal followed his refusal to provide personal tax information requested by the Department of Homeland Security for 40,000 individuals, citing privacy laws. “Removing the head of the IRS for refusing to violate this already controversial agreement is as alarming as it is telling,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight. “If this kind of abuse goes unanswered, it will embolden the administration to further trample privacy protections for immigrants and citizens alike.”
The administration’s immigration agenda has also found willing partners at the state level. Emails obtained by American Oversight reveal that Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s office coordinated with federal immigration authorities in February 2025 to identify and expand detention spaces in Texas. Plans are underway to convert Fort Bliss, a military base, into a $1.2 billion detention facility—the largest of its kind in U.S. history—set to begin operations on August 17, 2025. This expansion comes amid ongoing legal battles over other detention centers, including a recent 14-day halt to construction at the Florida Everglades facility due to environmental concerns. Despite the pause, detainees remain housed there, enduring harsh conditions such as extreme heat and poor food quality.
These developments have fueled broader concerns about the erosion of civil liberties, the weaponization of federal power against political opponents, and the targeting of marginalized communities. The administration has even reportedly considered creating a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” of National Guard troops to quell protests or unrest in U.S. cities—a plan that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars and, critics warn, imperil Americans’ constitutional rights to free speech and assembly.
Despite the mounting opposition, the administration’s actions have been met with limited legislative recourse. As Roll Call notes, the Home Rule Act allows Congress to terminate the federalization of D.C.’s police force through a joint resolution, but with Republicans in control, the prospect of overturning Trump’s order remains slim. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent moves to strip power from MPD Chief Pamela Smith and end D.C.’s sanctuary city policies have only intensified the standoff.
As the battle over D.C.’s autonomy and the broader direction of federal power rages on, the city’s residents—and the nation—find themselves at a crossroads. With legal challenges underway and political tensions running high, the outcome of this struggle will shape not only the future of the District of Columbia, but also the boundaries of executive authority and local self-governance across the United States.
