Democrats Challenge Trump’s DC Police Control Proposal
A prominent Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has voiced opposition to President Trump’s recent suggestion to take control of policing in Washington, D.C. On Tuesday, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, along with a group of lawyers and grassroots organizers, rejected the notion of declaring a “national emergency” based on crime rates to justify such actions. They are also pushing back against the idea of deploying the National Guard in other cities governed by Democrats.
During a press conference with the Not Obve Law Coalition, which consists of 150 organizations including advocacy groups and legal scholars, Raskin disputed Trump’s assertion that crime levels necessitate the invocation of the DC Home Rules Act—a 1973 law that grants a sitting president temporary control over the city’s police in emergencies.
Last month, Raskin proposed House Joint Resolution 115, aiming to nullify Trump’s declaration of a crime-related national emergency and to limit presidential powers concerning police control in the capital.
At the press conference, Raskin stated emphatically, “There are no emergency situations.” He further noted that even if there were, the law does not provide the president the authority to seize police control. “The president’s role is simply to advise the mayor on necessary police deployments for federal matters,” he added.
Trump’s federalization plans have sparked intense reactions. Co-chair Lisa Gilbert of the Law Coalition criticized the president for what she described as an authoritarian approach, referencing Trump’s declaration last month where he labeled D.C. a national crime emergency. She expressed concern over his suggestion to extend federal authority to cities like Chicago, countered by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s resistance.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded to Raskin’s comments by claiming he was aligned with “dangerous criminals” and suggested he should consider the approval of Trump’s actions from fellow Democrats, like D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who acknowledged a drop in crime attributed to the president’s intervention.
Raskin’s remarks coincide with a recent court ruling that found Trump violated laws prohibiting federal forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement when he dispatched troops to Los Angeles last June. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that this action set a troubling precedent, emphasizing that military engagement with civilian police presents risks to democracy.
Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics adviser, echoed Raskin’s sentiments, suggesting that Trump’s proposed actions are a step towards illegality and could lead to authoritarian governance. Eisen acknowledged that while D.C. may have unique circumstances compared to Los Angeles, the overarching pattern of the Trump administration’s approach raises serious concerns.
Ultimately, Eisen warned that allowing military involvement in civilian policing not only threatens democracy but also undermines legal frameworks meant to protect citizens from authoritarian overreach. Trump maintains his initiative is designed to “restore law and order” in a city he called “one of the most dangerous in the world.”
