The legality of Trump’s D.C. takeover as statistics show decline in crime

Amna Nawaz:

Welcome to the "News Hour."

President Trump announced today a federal takeover of Washington, D.C.'s police department and a deployment of its National Guard in order, he says, to crack down on crime. The move invokes rare, but legal presidential authorities, but local officials say he's wrong to say that crime has spiraled out of control.

Donald Trump, President of the United States: This is liberation day in D.C., and we're going to take our capital back.

Amna Nawaz:

Today, a renewed promise from the president to tackle what he says is a crime and homelessness problem in the nation's capital.

Donald Trump:

Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore.

Amna Nawaz:

Flanked by his Cabinet and federal law enforcement, the president declared a public safety emergency, announcing his attorney general will take control of D.C.'s police force, the National Guard will deploy hundreds of troops in the city and threatening the use of active-duty troops.

Donald Trump:

You're going to have a lot of essentially military — and we will bring in the military if it's needed, by the way.

Amna Nawaz:

Today's actions mark a major escalation of a federal crackdown already under way. Over the weekend, over 100 federal agents including FBI, Secret Service and U.S. Marshals, patrolled D.C. streets, a heightened presence that D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said was wholly unnecessary.

Muriel Bowser (D), Mayor of Washington, D.C.: While this action today is unsettling and unprecedented, I can't say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we're totally surprised. When we think of emergencies, it usually involves surges in crime.

Amna Nawaz:

Despite the president's claims, violent crime in D.C. hit a 30-year low in 2024, and, this year, violent crime has dropped another 26 percent, according to D.C. police statistics.

The president has stepped up calls for federal forces in the nation's capital since an administration staffer, Edward Coristine, was assaulted in D.C. last week while trying to stop an alleged carjacking.

(Chanting)

Amna Nawaz:

It's not the first time Trump has used this authority. During his first term, he ordered National Guardsmen and federal enforcement to forcibly clear largely peaceful protests after the police killing of George Floyd.

The National Guard says this time their functions will be limited to administrative duties and physical presence in support of law enforcement. Meanwhile, in California, a trial gets under way on whether Trump's recent National Guard deployment there violated the law. But, unlike in California, Washington, D.C., is a federal district, placing the D.C. National Guard firmly under the president's control.

Protesters:

No justice, no peace!

Amna Nawaz:

And on D.C. streets today, protesters railed against the president's actions.

Protester:

If they can place us under military control without our consent, they will carry this playbook to every community that dares to push back in the United States of America.

Amna Nawaz:

A notion the president didn't knock down.

Donald Trump:

We have other cities that are very bad. We're not going to lose our cities over this. And this will go further.

Amna Nawaz:

For more on the legality behind this action and what this means for the future of D.C., I'm joined by Steve Vladeck. He's professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center.

Steve, it's good to see you. Thanks for joining us.

Steve Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center:

Thanks for having me, Amna.

Amna Nawaz:

So, when it comes to the president's legal authority, D.C., is different. But let's just make it clear. Are the president's actions today legal? And can he do in other cities what he's doing in D.C.?

Steve Vladeck:

So the short answer to the first question is, technically, yes. The more important answer to the second question is almost certainly no.

And so, to break that apart, Congress has exerted more control over the District of Columbia than any other place in the country, including other federal territories, really going all the way back to the founding of D.C. in 1801. That includes the two powers President Trump invoked today, the power to use the D.C. National Guard without federalizing it, the power to take over, at least for 30 days, some assets within the Metropolitan Police Department.

We have never seen, Amna, a president use those authorities in this kind of factually dubious context. But I think the most important point is, these are D.C.-specific powers that could not be used, for example, for similar moves in New York or Chicago or anywhere else in the country.

Amna Nawaz:

So we know there's a legal challenge under way in California about the legality of the president's deployment of National Guard troops there. Could his deployment in D.C. be met with a similar legal challenge?

Steve Vladeck:

It could, Amna, but, again, I think the legal issues are different.

So, in California, President Trump purported to federalize the National Guard. So he took the state National Guard and tried to basically drop them into federal authority. In D.C., he doesn't have to do that. The president is actually already the commander in chief of the D.C. National Guard. It's the only National Guard for which that's true.

And so D.C. is the only place in the country where actually we don't have the question that's arisen in California about the validity of a federalization. Here, the president can act without any trigger. It's part of why I think folks were so critical of President Trump for not using the D.C. National Guard back on January 6.

Amna Nawaz:

We did mention the president's use of the National Guard in his first term as well. Just put the use of this authority into some bigger context for us. How frequently have we seen it used in this way?

Steve Vladeck:

So, Amna, I think we have to break out two pieces here. So the first is the use of the National Guard. We have seen that before, including from this president, including both earlier this term in California and in D.C.

What's really novel about what we're seeing today is the use of the D.C. Police Department. This provision for the president to take control of the Metropolitan Police Department for up to 30 days, it was put into the Home Rule Act back in 1973, but it's never been used.

And so I think part of what we're really going to need to watch out for is, how exactly is the Metropolitan Police Department's day-to-day work over the next days and weeks different from what it was doing over the first eight months of 2025? I mean, I think that's part of the issue here.

And, again, I think the real key is for folks to not get desensitized to the radicalism of using federalized police, using federalized military authority for ordinary law enforcement contexts in a setting in which the facts don't seem to support it.

Amna, that might be legal in the historically and constitutionally unique context of Washington, D.C. It doesn't make it right. And it would be a very dangerous precedent if we started to see efforts to build on that in other parts of the country.

Amna Nawaz:

So it's expected to be a 30-day takeover. How do you see this playing out? Could it be extended beyond that?

Steve Vladeck:

You know, the statute is at least a little bit ambiguous. It seems to contemplate that, at the end of 30 days, the authority expires.

President Trump might, Amna, try to declare a second emergency at the end of those 30 days to trigger and start a new 30-day clock. I suspect, if that's what happens, that is when we will see this be taken into court. And that's when I think there will be very serious arguments that the president is abusing these authorities, not just politically, but legally as well, authorities again that really are meant to deal with only the very unique problems that might arise in the nation's capital.

Amna Nawaz:

Steve Vladeck, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, always good to speak with you. Thank you again for your time.

Steve Vladeck:

Thanks, Amna.