More about the Federal Intervention in D.C.

Once again, I am going to address the federal intervention in the District of Columbia. There has been so much happening that I am almost not sure where to begin. But since cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump always likes to have attention focused on him, let's start there, specifically with his statements to the press yesterday.

Yesterday, Trump met with the press to announce that he was relocating the U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama. After that announcement, Trump took questions from reporters, which led to him speaking about the District of Columbia. It is no surprise to me that Trump is a liar, and a profligate one at that. But even I was shocked by the gulf between Trump's statements and the truth. Most of the reporters in the room probably live in the District. They had to have known that he was telling lie after lie. Yet, he was not challenged a single time. Trump declared that, as a result of his efforts, D.C. is now crime-free. This ignores that the day before three individuals in D.C. had been shot, one fatally. Trump claimed that, "The restaurants are open, they're booming. You can't get a restaurant. New restaurants are announcing that they're going to be open." In fact, I know of multiple restaurants that have been forced to close because they cannot find staff. Anyone who looks like they might not be a citizen it too afraid to go out in public, even to work. Business at restaurants is way down. Data from OpenTable shows that reservations have dropped significantly (graphic provided by Dan Friedman on X):

Trump claimed that 1,600 "hardcore criminals" have been arrested. But the arrest data provided by the federal government shows that while there were 1,608 arrests during the surge period for property crimes, there were only 143 arrests for violent crime. Moreover, federal prosecutors led by former Fox News television judge and current U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro, have been having unprecedented failures to indict some of those arrested. D.C. grand juries are simply not buying what Pirro and her staff have been selling. The old expression is that a ham sandwich can be indicted, but in D.C., ham sandwiches appear to have little to fear. It is rare that prosecutors cannot get indictments. It is almost unheard of that two grand juries refuse to indict the same individual. But, Pirro's prosecutors actually failed to win an indictment of one person after three tries. A grand jury even refused to indict the infamous "sandwich guy," of whom there are viral videos showing him tossing a submarine sandwich (sadly not ham) at a Customs and Border Patrol officer. He is now being charged with a misdemeanor, which does not require an indictment. All told, prosecutors have failed 7 times lately to get indictments. In other cases, prosecutors are being forced to drop cases, or judges are throwing them out.

Far from the rosy picture painted by Trump, the crime situation in D.C. at the moment is quite nuanced. It is important to remember that August in D.C. is very slow most years. Crime was already on a downward trend. Had Trump not done anything, it is very likely that August would have seen a drop in crime on the basis of those two factors alone. The surge of federal officers and the deployment of the National Guard caused a lot of people to stay home. The streets in D.C. have been dead. With fewer people out and about, you could expect drops in most categories of crime. I guess you could attribute that to Trump's actions. But overall, while there have been some notable drops, crime numbers are more or less what they probably would have been without Trump getting involved. The website Washington Broadsheet has taken a close look at the data. The impartial analysis provided shows that the data can be viewed as both supporting a reduction in crime and refuting it. As the article concludes:

On one hand, D.C. crime data since Aug. 11 shows fewer violent incidents compared with much of 2025, along with fresh lows in certain property crime categories. On the other, the week-to-week picture is uneven, the broader context suggests the decline is not statistically significant, and any improvement may have predated the crackdown.

What is clear is that the night and day difference claimed by Trump simply doesn't exist.

Yesterday, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced the creation of the "Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center." While I recognize that the name is paying homage to Trump's "D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force" created back in March, the name really grates on me. It really seems like a gratuitous level of groveling to Trump. Setting that aside, the purpose of the operations center is to coordinate communications and planning with the federal government while the crime emergency that Trump declared continues and afterwards.

It is a reality that D.C., not being a state, is exposed to significant federal involvement. Trump's crime emergency allowed him to take control of the Metropolitan Police Department for 30 days. That period will end next week. Clearly, Bowser is not interested in giving Trump any incentive to attempt to extend the emergency (though that would require Congressional approval, which it is unlikely to receive). More importantly, since the D.C. National Guard is controlled by Trump rather than Bowser, its deployment in the District can continue for as long as Trump wants. A similar situation is true of the federal agencies that have deployed additional personnel to the District. As long as Trump wants a federal surge, there will be a federal surge. What Bowser is standardizing the federal involvement by creating a formal mechanism for communications and coordination. This suggests that the Mayor is planning for the long run and doesn't expect the federal involvement to end anytime soon. Bowser's memo does not include an end date.

The Washington Post initially headlined its article about Bowser's creation of the operations center as "Bowser welcomes federal law enforcement presence indefinitely." That may have been overstating Bowser's position, and the headline provoked a strong rebuke from Chris Geidner, author of the Lawdork blog. The Post seems to have rethought the headline and later changed it to "Bowser to provide indefinite coordination with federal law enforcement." There are important political ramifications to how Bowser's action is presented. Most D.C. residents are unhappy about the federal intervention and want it to end. It would be extremely politically unpopular for Bowser to welcome the federal involvement, especially indefinitely. On the other hand, if Bowser were to show too much opposition to Trump's actions, that might motivate him to take even stronger actions against the District. What Bowser appears to be doing is trying to make the best of a bad situation. Geidner was upset that the Post headline gave the Trump administration an unearned win, and one of which both Trump and his spokesperson Karoline Leavitt quickly took advantage of by portraying Bowser as grateful for Trump's intervention.

My view, as unimportant as it admittedly is, is that the operations center is a double-edged sword. If it serves, as Bowser apparently hopes, to be a means of focusing federal resources where they can provide the most benefit and reducing the most harmful effects of the intervention, it could be a positive development. If, on the other hand, it functions simply as a mechanism for the federal government to exert control over the District, it will be a very negative development. Presumably, neither of these extremes will exist, and the reality will be somewhere in the middle, with Trump's wishes being passed down through the formal mechanism and District officials attempting to temper those desires as necessary, while also submitting their own requests for federal assistance.

Federal involvement in the District of Columbia is not new. The MPD has routinely coordinated with federal law enforcement agencies in a variety of capacities. What is new is Trump using the District as a political playground. Next week, D.C. officials may regain control of their police department. What will happen with the National Guard remains to be seen. Given that Trump has already declared the District to be crime-free, if inaccurately, he may be prepared to declare victory and withdraw, turning his attention elsewhere. The danger for Bowser, as she attempts to ingratiate herself with Trump, is that loyalty with Trump is a one-way street. Bowser can flatter Trump endlessly, but the second that it suits Trump to do so, he will turn on her.