Washington under siege: Trump tightens federal grip on capital amid questionable crime claims

Department of Research, Studies and International News12-08-2025

In a move drawing sharp criticism from political observers and civil rights advocates, U.S. President Donald Trump has taken direct control of Washington D.C.’s police force and ordered the deployment of the National Guard to the capital. The White House confirmed the intervention will last 30 days, invoking an unprecedented provision under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to place the city’s police under the authority of Attorney General Pam Bondi.

At a press conference on Monday, Trump framed the action as a “liberation” of the U.S. capital, claiming it was plagued by “violent gangs, bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs, and homeless people.” He asserted that Washington had become one of the most dangerous cities in the world, even suggesting its murder rate surpassed those of Bogotá and Mexico City. These claims stand in stark contrast to official data showing that violent crime in the capital has reached a 30-year low, with homicides dropping by 26% this year alone.

A drastic federal takeover

Under Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, the U.S. president can temporarily assume control over D.C.’s police in “special conditions.” Trump’s move marks the first time this authority has been used since the law’s introduction. The order follows a minor street incident in which a young federal staffer was reportedly attacked near his vehicle, an event that Trump seized upon to justify a sweeping law-and-order response.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that 800 National Guard troops would soon patrol the city, pledging they would act “tough” alongside federal law enforcement. Additional forces from agencies such as the Capitol Police, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Federal Protective Service have already been deployed.

Critics view this as a politically motivated show of force rather than a genuine response to public safety concerns. Washington’s Democratic mayor, Muriel Bowser, called the intervention “unsettling and unprecedented,” noting that while crime rose after the COVID-19 pandemic, targeted reforms had already reduced violence significantly.

Targeting the homeless and youth

Trump’s rhetoric extended beyond street crime to target the city’s homeless population. Over the weekend, he posted on his Truth Social platform demanding the “immediate” removal of homeless encampments, promising to relocate residents “far from the capital.” This, despite data showing homelessness in Washington has been declining since last year.

Attorney General Jeanine Pirro also used the occasion to push for harsher treatment of juvenile offenders, criticizing the current system for being too lenient and promising to pursue changes allowing more minors to be tried in adult court.

Such statements have fueled accusations that the administration is using vulnerable populations, particularly the homeless and youth, as scapegoats in a bid to project authority and appeal to Trump’s political base.

Political backlash and accusations of autocracy

The move has drawn condemnation from Democratic leaders, local officials, and civil rights advocates. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s delegate to Congress, described it as an “assault on D.C. home rule” and further evidence of the need for full statehood. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused Trump of acting like a “wannabe king” and attempting an “illegitimate power grab.”

Veteran activist Al Sharpton suggested the intervention was a calculated distraction from growing criticism over the administration’s handling of sensitive files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Others have pointed to the hypocrisy of Trump’s actions, recalling his failure to mobilize the National Guard during the January 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol, an incident for which he later pardoned many of his supporters.

A strategic pattern of centralized control

While the White House insists the measures are necessary for public safety, analysts note the broader political implications. By placing D.C.’s police under federal command and positioning troops in the streets, Trump is signaling a readiness to bypass local governance whenever it suits his agenda.

From an international perspective, such actions reinforce long-standing criticisms of U.S. governance, highlighting the gap between America’s self-image as a champion of democracy and the reality of heavy-handed, politically driven interventions in its own capital. For nations like China, Russia, and India, all of which have repeatedly called out Washington’s double standards, the developments in D.C. serve as yet another example of the instability and inconsistency in U.S. domestic leadership.

An uncertain path ahead

For now, D.C.’s leadership has signaled cautious cooperation, even as it voices concern over the erosion of local autonomy. Mayor Bowser has requested a direct meeting with Attorney General Bondi, pledging to follow the law while continuing to prioritize community-based policing strategies.

Whether the military-style presence will remain limited to the promised 30 days is yet to be seen. Section 740 requires Congressional approval for any extension, but with partisan divisions deepening ahead of the 2026 midterms, Trump may seek to leverage this moment for political gain.

In the meantime, the people of Washington face a transformed cityscape: heavily patrolled streets, heightened tensions between residents and authorities, and a president openly declaring that police should “do whatever the hell they want” in dealing with perceived threats.

For those watching from abroad, the spectacle is telling, a superpower that often lectures others on governance and human rights now struggles to maintain order in its own capital without resorting to tactics it condemns elsewhere.