This week, President Donald Trump announced a controversial move to invoke emergency powers under the Home Rule Act to federalize the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (DC MPD).
Flanked by key officials including his Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, FBI Director, and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, the President made the declaration citing a need to make “DC safe again.”
The President characterized the capital as being overrun by “violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals” and pledged to take decisive action to “rescue” the city.
During a press conference, he emphasized the problem of youth violence, claiming that “caravans of mass youth rampage through city streets at all times of the day.”
He further addressed homelessness as a significant concern, a day after posting on Truth Social that “The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital.”
However, even if there was a substantial crime wave in D.C. that warranted federal intervention, deploying overwhelming force does not effectively address the issues of youth violence or homelessness.
In fact, it contradicts proven, humane community-based solutions that aim to tackle these issues while also safeguarding civil rights and addressing their root causes.
Research from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services shows that juvenile crime is closely linked to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), exposure to violence, unstable housing, and poverty within neighborhoods.
The DOJ reports indicate that predictors of youth violence are more closely associated with family conflicts, poor school engagement, delinquent peers, and community deprivation than merely the presence of more police patrols or federal agents.
What has proven effective, based on extensive research, are summer youth employment programs (SYEPs), particularly when combined with mentoring initiatives.
Para-analyses indicate that in Chicago, participation in a six-week summer jobs program resulted in a reduction of violent-crime arrests by about one-third over the subsequent year.
Similarly, in New York City, involvement in SYEP lowered the possibility of arrest during the summer by 17% and substantially cut felony convictions by 38%.
The story of homelessness is parallel: enforcement-heavy strategies and practices like encampment “sweeps” do not resolve homelessness and may exacerbate the situation.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has found that displacing encampments without providing housing increases health and safety risks for unsheltered individuals and disrupts their access to necessary care.
Consistently, HUD and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) demonstrate that robust housing programs and permanent supportive housing significantly improve housing stability and reduce the use of costly crisis services.
The data shows that the most effective approaches involve social and human services aimed at reducing the number of youth in the judicial system and decreasing the number of individuals living on the streets.
If the true sources of crime and homelessness are rooted in poverty, trauma, and insufficient services, then an influx of federal agents is as ineffective as attempting to lower a fever by cranking up the air conditioning.
The deployment of federal law enforcement agents and National Guard troops into D.C. does not only ignore more efficient strategies but is also hazardous for the personnel involved.
Federal policing is intended to enforce national laws and protect federal interests, while community policing is predominantly about building rapport, trust, and collaborative problem-solving at the neighborhood level.
It’s crucial to recognize that the DC MPD is directly accountable to D.C. residents and local elected officials, whereas federal agencies and the National Guard operate without such accountability.
Having undergone police training, I can attest that D.C. officers are instructed in the use of their authority with compassion, restraint, and discretion, which are the essential principles of community policing.
National Guard and federal officers, however, lack this training.
Moreover, while the presence of the Guard in D.C. is predominantly symbolic—patrolling mainly secure areas and federal properties—they are ill-equipped for any violent situations they might confront.
Their capacity to engage in a well-structured “use of force continuum,” which trains officers to apply only the necessary level of force based on circumstances, is inhibited.
This framework teaches law enforcement how to escalate or de-escalate appropriately, prioritizing verbal commands and employing less lethal measures only when necessary.
The aim is to ensure proportional and lawful responses while protecting the safety of officers in the field.
Unlike local police, whose guidelines, policies, and training are subject to oversight by elected officials and public review boards, federal law enforcement operates with far less scrutiny and transparency.
Many federal units do not utilize body-worn cameras as D.C. law enforcement does, and there is no straightforward access for the public to engage with or challenge federal police actions.
The lack of such transparency is particularly alarming following President Trump’s inflammatory comments urging officers to “knock the hell out of them” in reference to youths engaging in wrongdoing.
In short, federal law enforcement and the National Guard are ill-suited for the neighborhood-level crime prevention roles or the nuanced relationship-building required in community policing.
Their missions are fundamentally different, focused primarily on enforcing federal laws, safeguarding federal property, managing border security, or responding to national crises.
The importance of community trust cannot be understated; trust is the bedrock upon which effective policing is built.
The most successful communities in crime prevention often exhibit a level of self-policing because residents and law enforcement collaborate to identify and deter crime.
This kind of cooperation requires a foundation of trust that cannot easily be established under a heavy-handed federal presence.
President Trump painted a bleak picture of D.C. as justification for assuming unprecedented control over local police services, claiming the city faced dire threats from crime.
Contrary to his depiction, however, the Bowser administration, independent researchers, and even federal statistics suggest that crime across the District has been trending to near-historic lows.
We need to acknowledge that the narrative presented by the White House does not reflect reality and could indicate a deeper agenda.
From my perspective as an analyst, it appears that this police takeover could serve as a template for the swift federal responses to upcoming political demonstrations or civil unrest in the capital.
President Trump expressed regret over not being harsher on protests in D.C. during the summer of 2020 following the murder of George Floyd.
The protests, which included instances of violence and looting, dissipated significantly after federal law enforcement and National Guard forces were mobilized without Mayor Bowser’s consent.
Trump might view this as a success, but did not take the step of federalizing the MPD at that time.
One plausible interpretation of the current maneuver is that President Trump may intend to uphold control over law enforcement in D.C. indefinitely.
Under Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, the President can manage the D.C. police for 48 hours in an emergency, extendable to 30 days with notification to Congress, and beyond that only with Congressional approval.
He indicated plans to seek “long-term extensions,” stating, “you can’t have 30 days,” hinting at a desire for prolonged control.
Should he succeed in maintaining a longer federal takeover of D.C.’s law enforcement, it would represent a significant shift in the balance of local and federal authority, establishing a precedent that could be replicated in other cities.
While legal challenges could arise in extending control without Congressional approval, the implications for political dynamics, operational integrity, and civil liberties would be profound and immediate.
Ironically, while federal resources are allocated in D.C., a city marked by historically low crime rates, these same resources are being diverted from addressing pressing national issues such as drug interdiction, counter-terrorism, and domestic extremism.
This could result not only in making D.C. less safe but also compromise broader national security, amplifying political divisiveness as communities rejecting federal overreach gear up for potential conflict.
Looking deeper into the motivations behind this maneuver, there are several levels upon which the President’s actions can be understood.
Firstly, it demonstrates that he can execute such a plan with minimal resistance, as D.C. lacks the means to effectively oppose federal actions.
This move occurs in an environment with no concrete grounds for alarm, as crime rates are already low, allowing for a victory narrative at his discretion.
Simultaneously, the administration can streamline operational protocols with federal and local assets now, thereby positioning itself better for any future needs.
Moreover, the current operation can send a strong message to other Democratic-run cities, some of which were specifically mentioned by the President in his comments.
Notably, if the courts validate the use of the National Guard in Los Angeles during earlier unrest, it could pave the way for federal forces to be dispatched to other cities as well.
One particularly concerning statement from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi during the announcement declared, “Crime in D.C. is ending and ending today.”
While such a declaration is patently absurd, it raises the critical question of what constitutes success for this operation.
What crime rate would be low enough to warrant a cessation of federal intervention?
It is impractical to expect a zero-crime environment, and if the administration aims to make D.C. the safest city solely through a heavy federal presence, it could result in a long-term occupation.
Also alarming is the potential for this model to extend to cities like Chicago or Oakland, indicating that the motivations behind this action go beyond merely public safety.
When faced with real emergencies, such as the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Trump notably delayed deploying support despite urgent requests.
At that moment, when democracy itself was under threat, his response was fundamentally different from the staged crisis he now seeks to justify federal overreach.
It is this disparity that highlights the dangerous and cynical nature of the current situation.
Watching the press conference, it became evident that officials emphasizing their commitment to upholding the law were engaged in a performative act that belies deeper consequences.
This unfolding scenario in D.C. serves as a stark warning: the expansion of presidential authority is often a precursor to power grabs that threaten liberty.
As Thomas Jefferson cautioned, “Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
These ominous trends are manifesting in today’s Washington, D.C.
image source from：justsecurity
