Pam Bondi takes Unlawful Steps against D.C.

There have been some important developments regarding the steps that cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump has taken with regard to the District of Columbia. When I wrote about this on Tuesday, I noted that Trump had taken three steps that were legally within his power: increase the number of federal agents assigned to the District; deploy members of the D.C. National Guard, and; invoke emergency power to direct services from the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes. I also noted that there was a wide gulf between the stated aspirations indicated by Trump in his press conference the previous day and the legal authority available to him. As a result, I foresaw the possibility of conflict between D.C. and federal officials and predicted that Attorney General Brian Schwab would be spending time in federal court contesting future Trump actions. Late yesterday, that conflict arrived, and Schwab has already filed his first court case. Now, home rule in D.C. is facing a grave threat.

Yesterday evening, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a directive placing Drug Enforcement Administration head Terry Cole in charge of the Metropolitan Police Department. This appears to be an unlawful action, and Schwab has sued Trump in federal court. The Home Rule Act allows Trump to exert limited authority over the MPD in an emergency, requiring D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to provide MPD services to the federal government, something Bowser has been doing. However, taking complete control of the MPD in this manner seems to be far outside what is allowed by the Home Rule Act. This action raises a number of concerns about the intentions of the Trump administration. If Trump is allowed to take this unlawful action, he will likely take additional steps. He has expressed a desire to take full control of D.C., something that he is not lawfully allowed to do. It now appears that he may attempt to achieve this goal unlawfully.

Having observed the federal actions in D.C. for the past few days, I am comfortable in saying that the goals of the Trump administration have nothing to do with reducing crime. That is simply a justification being used to allow actions aimed at other ends. If you believe that reducing crime was the goal, you would also have to accept that the federal authorities are incompetent. None of their actions have been aimed at effectively reducing crime. Based on what I have seen, the initial goal was visibility for public relations purposes, especially for the national media and visitors from out-of-town. Hence, there have been large deployments on the National Mall and at Union Station. Places where the federal personnel will be seen and photographed, but not where there is significant crime to be fought. In other words, the Trump administration wanted to give the impression that something was being done, even though it wasn't. The second goal is somewhat related and was to establish a presence in areas frequented by tourists and D.C.'s White residents. These were neighborhoods such as Georgetown, U Street, and H Street NE. The federal deployment might find some support in these neighborhoods, but it wasn't really needed. However, at least in the U Street area, there has been opposition from local residents, including the highly publicized sandwich-throwing incident. There is no indication that there has been any significant increase in law enforcement resources in D.C.'s most crime-plagued neighborhoods.

Two other goals can be said to be only tangentially related to reducing crime. One has been a wave of immigration arrests. Anecdotally, it appears that the food delivery scooter riders, many of whom are from Venezuela, have been particularly hard hit. Generally, the MPD has not cooperated with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency due to D.C.'s sanctuary city law. However, yesterday, D.C. Chief of Police Pamela Smith issued a directive authorizing D.C. police to notify ICE about people who are not in custody. This appears to have been primarily aimed at police checkpoints that have appeared around the District. If an MPD officer stops a car and finds that its occupants lack appropriate immigration status, ICE can be notified to come and get them. This may have been an attempt to satisfy federal demands for cooperation on immigration while still adhering to D.C.'s law. However, it failed to mollify Bondi and, later in the day, she issued her own directive scrapping all limits on cooperation. This is another violation of D.C. law.

The next goal of the federal operation was to clear tent encampments used by unhoused residents. At least one encampment was removed yesterday during the day and more overnight. Again, the targets appear to have been those locations which are most visible to visitors of the District and seem to be mostly an attempt to simply make the District look better. When I discussed this on Tuesday, I noted that there was no plan for what to do with the residents of the camps. Subsequently, Trump officials said the residents would be urged to go to shelters and arrested if they refused. However, as of last night, D.C.'s shelters were full. Attorney General Schwab has warned hospitals to expect an influx of unhoused individuals checking themselves in for medical care.

Given the actions taken by Bondi yesterday to impose her own head of the D.C. police and to override D.C.'s sanctuary city law, it is completely reasonable to suspect that the federal goals go well beyond reducing crime. Rather, Bondi's moves may be the first steps towards assuming full federal control of the District. There are a number of conspiracy theories floating around concerning Trump's intentions. I don't want to engage in any of those, but rather to stick to what is established fact. Factually, it appears that the federal government has taken unlawful actions that directly contradict the Home Rule Act and, thereby, impinge on the rights of D.C. residents. I strongly support all resistance to such efforts. I urge all D.C. residents to oppose unlawful federal interference in D.C. affairs and to refuse to cooperate. I hope that D.C. residents will note those who willingly collaborate with the federal actions and that such individuals will be shunned in the future. Anyone willing to compromise the rights of D.C. residents should have no future in the District.

It is interesting to me to note that for years people with very different political views than my own have demonstrated with flags saying "Don't Tread on Me". The apparent worries of such folks were that the federal government would impose its will on them in ways that were not welcome. That is exactly what is happening in D.C. Now would be a good time for the flag wavers to demonstrate whether "Don't Tread on Me" simply represented a personal concern or actually indicated a universal principle. If you truly believe that the federal government should not unlawfully tread on the rights of its citizens, please contact your elected representatives and urge them to oppose Trump's takeover. D.C. already suffers from taxation without representation; we must oppose also having government without representation forced upon us.

As I noted at the conclusion of my post on Tuesday, Trump's unlawful actions in D.C. are not simply a problem for those of us who are residents of the District. Trump has already described plans to take similar steps in other cities. Trump's initial steps establishing a dictatorship may not affect you. The same might not be said for his next steps. Now is a time for Americans from across the political spectrum to stand up for democracy, self-governance, and the rule of law. Almost 250 years ago, the founders of this nation rejected a king. We must do the same today.

Update: This evening there was a hearing on DC's lawsuit against the Trump administration. It was pretty clear that the judge was going to enjoin several parts of Bondi's memo regarding the takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department. Therefore, Department of Justice lawyers asked for a chance to provide a new memo. Subsequently, Bondi issued a new directive. This one does not appoint a new police commissioner. Three of the four services required from the MPD involve immigration and the fourth involves clearing unhoused people from public spaces. This suggests that the MPD will mostly be used for immigration enforcement and removal of the unhoused. This should completely end the discussion about whether Trump's actions are aimed at reducing crime.