President Donald Trump has thrust the question of federal authority over local law enforcement back into the national spotlight, following two high-profile moves in August 2025 that have drawn both legal challenges and fierce debate. On August 6, Trump reignited his threat to have the federal government "run" Washington, DC, after a former Department of Government Efficiency employee was assaulted in an attempted carjacking. His comments suggested not only a possible federal takeover of the DC Police Department but also the rapid deployment of the National Guard to the city in response to what he described as a crime problem.
The White House quickly announced that, beginning the night of August 7, the federal law enforcement presence in the nation’s capital would be ramped up. This mobilization included the US Capitol Police, FBI, US Marshals Service, DC Police, DEA, and other agencies. It was not immediately clear if the National Guard would be part of this deployment. According to a White House official cited by CNN, the move was meant to reassure residents and deter further crime. However, experts and local officials questioned both the necessity and legality of the action, noting that 2025 crime numbers in DC are actually lower than those of the previous year, according to preliminary DC Police data.
Trump, for his part, left little doubt about his intentions. He told reporters, "I'm going to look at overturning Home Rule," referring to the Home Rule Act of 1973, which granted DC some degree of self-governance. Trump added, "The lawyers are already studying it." But as Jill Hasday, a constitutional law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, explained to CNN, "To fully remove local control over DC, Congress would have to repeal the Home Rule Act. So, if what the president has in mind is complete federal control over DC, in other words, no possibilities and no room for local control, that would require repealing the Home Rule Act."
One unique aspect of DC’s status is that its National Guard’s 2,700 soldiers and airmen report directly to the president, rather than to a governor, as is the case in every other state. Trump noted, "I'm considering bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly, too." William Banks, professor emeritus of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University, told CNN, "By statute, the president is made the commander of the DC Guard. In every other place, every other state, it's the governor. Here, it's the president."
Despite Trump’s rhetoric, legal experts were quick to caution that federal authorities must still respect constitutional rights. Claire Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, emphasized the importance of leaving law enforcement to the police, while Banks noted, "They have to respect the constitutional rights of the people so they can't intimidate, they can't search and seize without a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. They can't target individuals on the basis of their political beliefs or their political expression."
The prospect of federal troops patrolling DC’s streets has evoked memories of 2020, when Trump called in a host of federal authorities to respond to protests following the police killing of George Floyd. That response, which included personnel from the National Guard, FBI, ICE, Secret Service, Park Police, and other agencies, drew sharp criticism from DC officials and resulted in striking images of authorities in full fatigues patrolling downtown streets. Hasday observed, "It's not clear that DC is, in fact, undergoing a public safety crisis." She added, "Although there's violent crime in DC, just as there is everywhere, I haven't seen any outside sources claim the situation is beyond the capacity of local police."
Meanwhile, on the opposite coast, Trump’s use of federal power is facing a direct legal test in California. Beginning August 11, a federal judge in California will preside over a bench trial to determine whether the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by deploying thousands of National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles without the consent of the state’s governor and the city’s mayor. The lawsuit, brought by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, alleges that Trump overstepped his constitutional authority and "manufactured a crisis."
The case stems from Trump’s deployment of 2,000 California National Guard troops on June 7, 2025, to respond to protests against immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles’ Fashion District. Protests and skirmishes on June 6 and 7 included vandalism of a federal courthouse and a car set ablaze. Trump authorized the deployment for up to 60 days, marking the first time in over half a century the federal government had called in the National Guard without a governor's approval. Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass vocally opposed the move, with Newsom declaring, "This is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy." He also described the deployment as "dangerous" and an abuse of power.
Shortly after, the Pentagon mobilized another 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to support federal law enforcement in California. Trump, undeterred by local opposition, suggested that officials who "stand in the way of law and order" would "face judges." The legal battle centers on the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from acting as domestic law enforcement except under extraordinary circumstances. Trump invoked Section 12406 of federal code, claiming a "rebellion" in California, though Newsom and Bonta dispute that any such rebellion existed.
Judge Charles Breyer initially sided with Newsom, issuing a temporary restraining order on June 12 to block Trump from commandeering the California National Guard. However, this order was quickly overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that Trump likely acted lawfully due to damage to federal buildings and found that the governor lacked veto power over the federalization of the National Guard. As of early August, a drawdown of troops was underway, with about 300 National Guard members remaining in Los Angeles.
The stakes of the California trial are significant, not only for the state but for the entire nation. The outcome will help determine how far a president can go in deploying military force to address domestic unrest, especially when local officials object. The trial is expected to last only three days, but its impact could reverberate for years.
Back in the nation’s capital, the debate over federal control versus local autonomy remains as heated as ever. As Banks put it, "The background principle in the United States is that we like to have our laws enforced by civilians, by police, and we like it to be at the local level, people that are soldiers, cops, if you will, who are close to us. They're our friends and neighbors. They live in our community."
With legal challenges mounting and public debate intensifying, the boundaries of presidential power in domestic law enforcement are once again being tested, leaving both Washington, DC, and California at the center of a national reckoning over who really holds the reins of public safety.
