Washington DC sees increased federal control
The administration of President Donald Trump has made a dramatic pivot in its policing policy by deploying armed National Guard soldiers to patrol Washington DC. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that troops, who have already been deployed in large numbers throughout the capital, will now be armed, a sharp increase in federal presence in local law enforcement.
There are close to 2,000 National Guard troops stationed in the capital. Until last week, both the Pentagon and the US Army had stated that the troops would not be armed. The abrupt U-turn has left many wondering why. A defense official said the move was directly connected to “reducing the crime rate in our country’s capital” and that the troops were to perform as per their training and mission orders.
Local officials, who were informed of the plan earlier this week, have expressed concerns but remain largely sidelined. Unlike other states where governors command the National Guard, the District of Columbia falls under federal oversight, giving the White House far more latitude.
Trump targets Chicago and New York
Speaking at the Oval Office, Donald Trump indicated that Washington DC is just the starting point. He threatened journalists that his government would spread its crackdown to other big cities, specifically referring to Chicago and New York.
“When ready, we will begin in Chicago,” he said. “Chicago is a mess.” He included New York to follow, painting both cities as engulfed in crime and mismanagement.
Both cities, along with others the president previously cited Baltimore, Oakland, and Los Angeles are predominantly Democratic and governed by Black mayors. Critics say the trend is indicative of selective targeting of political adversaries and not an actual public safety initiative. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott called out Trump for “singling out Black cities,” and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore ruled out sending troops to his state “for theatrics.”
A push for hard-edged prosecutions
In addition to authorizing the arming of the National Guard, the Justice Department is cracking down on how cases are prosecuted in the capital. Jeanine Pirro, the top federal prosecutor in DC and a former Fox News host, issued a directive that her staff should seek maximum charges in most cases.
“Following President Trump’s order to make DC safe, US attorney Pirro has sent a message that the old business-as-usual approach is not going to cut it,” said her spokesman Tim Lauer.
This strategy may mean longer jail terms, but it has raised concerns among legal experts regarding fairness and discretion. The policy does not allow much flexibility for prosecutors to take into account circumstances or to negotiate charges short of the capital, marking a radical change in how justice will be meted out in the capital.
Surprisingly, Pirro also eased enforcement on one major issue. Prosecutors were told not to pursue felony charges against people for possession of shotguns or rifles, even though DC law forbids them. Exceptions are still in place for violent offenses or for those prohibited from firearm ownership. Pirro justified the action, invoking guidance from the US Supreme Court and the solicitor general.
ALSO READ: Trump’s Washington Crackdown Intensifies As National Guard Troops Ordered To Carry Firearms
Federal power vs. local authority
The authorization to deploy troops and increase federal law enforcement raises more profound issues about the national-local power balance. Historically, state governors have managed National Guard missions, with the federal government intervening in extraordinary circumstances and sometimes at the urging of the state.
Trump’s initial decision to federalize the National Guard in California over Governor Gavin Newsom’s opposition already represented a close-to-unprecedented move. Deploying troops into Los Angeles to counter protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) further highlighted the administration’s desire to circumvent state leadership.
Now that Trump is publicly announcing his plans to expand such crackdowns to places such as Chicago and New York, the conflict between federal power and local control is likely to escalate.
A political fight shrouded in public safety
Although the White House describes its intervention in terms of a response to increasing crime and homelessness, critics recognize the politically driven intervention of Democratic strongholds. Trump even called his takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department in DC a “success” and used it as a model for other cities.
Yet, local officials are resisting. They contend that violence is declining in cities like Baltimore through community-based programs and not militarized crackdowns. Arming federal troops on city streets at the risk of fuelling tensions instead of restoring order is what critics warn against.
As Trump digs in, the battle is no longer only over policing. It is now about power, control, and the future dynamics between Washington and America’s cities.
