A broad and contentious federal intrusion into Washington, D.C.’s law enforcement scene has produced a lot of problems, both in the city and across the country. People in the city, including lawyers, civil rights activists, and everyday people, are all worried about the president’s announcement that the federal government will take over the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for 30 days. Many of them are concerned that the plan goes too far with presidential power and could upset the delicate balance between federal and local government.
On Monday, the president said at a press conference that he was taking charge and that the capital needed a stronger, bolder response to crime and civic unrest. The plan calls for 800 National Guard members to work alongside federal law enforcement and the MPD to watch over the streets of Washington, D.C. Many people disagreed with the president’s order to quickly remove homeless people from all public spaces. He said that what he did was part of a strategy to “bring back the city’s beauty and dignity.”
The president’s ideas on law enforcement and city government were not the same as what they had expressed before. The president said, “No more Mr. Nice Guy,” which meant that being kind, following the rules, and letting the community police itself hadn’t made people feel safe enough. He said that people in the city thought the politicians had forgotten about them and promised to bring back what he called “real law and order.”
But critics quickly pointed out a big gap between what the government said and what the crime numbers showed. The city revealed numbers earlier this summer that indicated violent crime is at its lowest level in almost 25 years. There are fewer murders, assaults, and armed robberies going on. Also, property crimes and other nonviolent crimes have gone down, which goes against the idea that the city is in chaos. Community leaders said that the government built up a story about pandemonium to justify using so much federal force.
People were even more angry when the president told reporters that federal police would be allowed to “do whatever they want” if they faced opposition or violence. Lawyers and groups that advocate for human rights interpreted this as a hint that the police would use too much force, which might make civil rights protections weaker. Many people were worried about how vague and open-ended the order was because they thought it might lead to abuses of power that weren’t being looked into, especially in groups that have been over-policed and watched in the past.
Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser, who often disagrees with federal officials over who has power and who doesn’t, said the move was “unsettling and unprecedented.” She had a press conference that was quite emotional and talked about how the federal government has been hard on the District of Columbia in the past. But it’s been a long time since the federal government took over the District’s police department altogether. She added that the administration hadn’t sought her office for advice before making a decision and accused them of breaking the law and democratic processes.
Bowser also said that sending in federal and military agents could make it harder for people to trust the police, which is already hard to do. In the previous 10 years, D.C. has invested money on community policing programs, diversion programs for nonviolent offenders, and social services that try to figure out why people commit crimes. Local leaders are worried that a large military presence could undo the progress that has been done and make people feel less protected instead of more safe.
The ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, two civil rights groups, spoke out against the decision, saying it was autocratic and maybe even illegal. People who care about the homeless were angry about the forced evacuations from public places. They said that was a “cruel and punitive” way to deal with a housing issue that has been going on for a long time and hasn’t been fixed. A lot of individuals think that the government cared more about how things appeared than about people’s dignity.
People are already looking at the legal reasons for the takeover. People are trying to utilize the law to keep the National Guard from coming to the District without the mayor’s approval. The lawsuits will certainly use legal grounds from a case that happened in California before. In that case, the federal government ordered Guard troops to Los Angeles to deal with huge rallies against immigration, even though the governor didn’t want them there. The event led to a constitutional fight over how far the federal government can go when it sends troops to the U.S. Officials in the state say that these activities are against the Tenth Amendment and the ideas behind federalism.
The lawyers for the administration say that the Insurrection Act and other emergency statutes provide them the legal power to act in both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Experts warn, though, that these kinds of rules aren’t very clear and aren’t regularly tried in court, especially when there isn’t a state of emergency or rebellion. Some people worry that the government is giving the president more power in ways that could have long-term effects by exploiting legal areas that aren’t clear.
People who agree with what the president is doing say that the federal government is doing what local governments couldn’t do. Some conservative bloggers and MPs hailed the government for being willing to take “tough action” in response to what they see as the demise of cities and the lack of development in politics. They say that the National Guard will lower crime, bring back order, and make people and businesses feel safe again.
On the other side, a lot of people who desire tighter enforcement don’t like the way things are now. People who don’t like the notion say that if the federal government can take over a city’s police department and send military without the city’s permission, they could do the same thing in other cities where they don’t like how things are done. What protections are in place to stop abuse? Right now, these problems are affecting the whole country, not just Washington, D.C.
The capital of the United States is now a high-stakes test of how well the federal government and local governments work together, how to keep people secure, and how to obey the Constitution. This is going on during the 30-day control phase. People are becoming used to a new, tense normal where streets are being watched, police are more visible, and it’s becoming less clear what the government can and can’t do. People will undoubtedly perceive this intervention as either a necessary correction or a dangerous overstep, depending on what occurs in the next few weeks and the legal, political, and civic consequences that follow.