'It's an Occupation': A Local Lawmaker Reacts to Trump's D.C. Takeover

It’s been one month since President Donald Trump initiated a takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., and deployed more than 2,000 National Guard troops to patrol the city’s neighborhoods. Trump declared in an executive order that he was taking charge because “crime is out of control in the District of Columbia.”

While Washington’s rate of violent crime is higher than many other cities, it’s much lower than it was a few decades ago, and has fallen in recent years. (Critics of Trump’s order have pointed out that he called in National Guard troops from Tennessee, even though Memphis has higher crime rates than the district.)

Troops have been patrolling Washington neighborhoods for the last several weeks, often seen working on beautification projects or just standing around. Still, the presence of so much law enforcement has driven down crime compared to the same period last year, with a particularly steep drop in carjackings.

For Washington, the effort is a significant intrusion on its control of its own government — already a tenuous hold given its unique status as a federal district. Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, which established local governance in the district, the president can command certain services from the Metropolitan Police Department during declared emergencies.

Reaction from officials has been varied. Several Washington Council members have loudly opposed the takeover, calling it an authoritarian occupation. Mayor Muriel Bowser, for her part, has taken a more conciliatory approach, going so far as to issue an executive order requiring local police to coordinate with federal officials past the 30-day emergency. Bowser has cast this as a strategic attempt to prevent the president from seeking an extension on the emergency declaration — Trump has not sought that extension, though officials have suggested he would keep the National Guard in the city through the end of the year.

In recent days Trump has falsely declared the district to be “crime free.” He has signaled that he may send the National Guard to other cities next, potentially including Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Portland, Ore.

Robert White, a Democrat in his second term as an at-large member of the district Council, spoke with Governing about the presence of troops in the city, the future of D.C.’s home rule status, and how local and state officials can respond to further troop deployments. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Governing: You’ve called this an occupation. What does it look and feel like to be there at the moment? How has your experience of the city changed? 

Robert White: It’s not normal to drive around and see armed people in military uniforms in the city. It’s hard to explain to my kids, who are 6 and 9, what’s happening here. It’s an occupation because it’s both unwelcome and unwarranted. It’s also unhelpful. But I don’t think it’s meant to be helpful in any way.

What do you think it’s meant to be? 

It’s meant to be the opening move in a national move toward authoritarianism. The president can occupy D.C. much more easily because of D.C.’s unique position as a federal district. But it still sets a precedent that makes it easier to do it in other cities.

A few years back, during the summer of the George Floyd protests, the National Guard was posted in D.C. How does what’s happening now compare?

I’ve never seen the National Guard policing neighborhoods like this. I disagree with how the president and the mayor utilized the guard in the Black Lives Matter protests. I thought it was very inappropriate for constitutionally protected actions. But back then, at least the deployments were isolated to areas of significant protest. Here, the District of Columbia is at a 30-year-low in crime and the president is deploying thousands of guard troops across the city claiming that there is a crime emergency. The nation is paying for these guard troops to be standing around and in many circumstances doing beautification projects that frankly could be done by high schoolers who need volunteer hours.

Mayor Bowser has pledged continued cooperation with federal officials. You’ve described that as a “surrender.” Can you say more about what you mean by that and what you wish Mayor Bowser would do at this moment instead? 

I try to focus more on what we need to do than criticisms of the mayor. But almost all of our residents are saying, “We don’t welcome this.” And they want us to be clear, as the people they elected to have their back, that we don’t welcome this. Governors and mayors across the country that are being threatened with unrequested occupation are saying, “This is not right.” Regardless of political party, people are very uncomfortable with an authoritarian government, because we are a democratic nation. And they're very uncomfortable with the brutality of immigration enforcement. It has just been heartless. So if elected officials are not linking arms with other like-minded people across the country, and speaking the words of their constituents, then I think we are not handling this moment the way we need to.

Locally, we have an obligation to be clear that this is going to make crime worse in the coming years. The trust that has been destroyed in our local police, which it took them years to build, is going to be so devastating. People talk to police officers to help them solve crimes because they trust them, because they have relationships with them. But when people cannot distinguish between federal officers and local police officers, that makes our local police look bad. That is not fair to them, nor is it fair to our city.

What can you do about this as a local elected official? 

I have a voice as an elected official. You have to use that. We have allies around the nation. We have to utilize those. The elected official who says, “There’s nothing I can do because I’m not vested with the appropriate amount of power,” is an elected official that’s on their way out. Can Illinois stop the president if he turned the military on that state? Probably not successfully. But it doesn’t mean the governor doesn’t express significant opposition and mobilize whatever they have at their disposal against it.

Part of the reason Trump focused on D.C. first is because it’s the federal government’s own backyard, but also because, as you mentioned, there’s a different legal structure than other cities and states. What are the limitations on D.C. because of your status as a federal district? 

The 700,000 residents of D.C. have the unique status of having no voting member of the House, no senators, no governor, and yet we pay federal taxes. That is not just unique in the United States. That’s unique in the democratic world. Other capital-city residents are not disenfranchised as D.C. residents are. Because we have no governor and no control over our National Guard, we are more susceptible to federal intervention and federal overreach like we’re seeing now. District residents can also have their laws and their funding, including our local tax dollars, changed and restricted by Congress.

You’re a supporter of D.C. statehood. Where do you see that going now? 

I think the District of Columbia is in a historically unique position right now. Usually the rights and liberties of Washingtonians is not the priority of anyone outside of Washington, D.C. There are others who care about it, but it’s not their top priority.

However, now that Democrats are fighting fire with fire and engaging in redistricting battles, folks see, or should see, a benefit to D.C. statehood that they didn’t see this time last year. It’s not just about party politics, but if D.C. residents had, as they should have, two senators that could protect democracy and a voting member of the House who could protect democracy, we’d have a much stronger line of defense against a president who wants to move us further away from democracy.

I think we need to be rallying the nation around D.C. statehood because not only are we ground zero for an authoritarian takeover, but if we were a state, we could be a significant part of the nation’s defense.

Officially this emergency is supposed to end on Wednesday. Are you expecting the continued presence of federal officers in the district after that? 

I think the average resident will see no difference the day after this so-called emergency ends versus the day before, because the president always anticipated this occupation to be permanent. I think we won’t see less occupation of D.C. until the president tries to move those troops to other parts of the country.

Is there anything you’d suggest that local leaders prepare for in places that Trump has talked about sending troops next? Chicago is top of mind for people, but other cities as well. 

I think that elected officials at the local level and the state level need to be prepared to decide what’s non-negotiable in their states and cities. They need to be prepared to protect their constitutional autonomy at all costs. The 10th Amendment gives all rights that are not enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution to the states.

The traditions and norms of democracy and governing are being broken every single day. There are many people who are saying this is not right, but there are some people who are saying, “Oh, it didn’t go too far yet.” I think elected officials and everyday citizens need to be really clear about what’s happening and what those lines are before those lines start being crossed.

This is a reality that none of us thought we would find ourselves in. But it is really important right now that we study history, both American history and world history, to understand where we are and where things go if we don’t push back. I also think it’s important to remember that everyone has something to contribute. Yes if you’re an elected official, but also yes if you’re a lawyer who can offer pro bono assistance, an able-bodied person who can help a neighbor or just somebody who can amplify messages online. There is a role for everybody right now, and we need to be clear that the time to act is today, because at some point it becomes impossible to roll back the momentum.