Trump Threatens Control of FIVE Other Cities

For the first time in decades, a president has seized direct control of a major U.S. police force—and says other cities could be next.

Story Snapshot

Trump invoked Section 740 to place D.C.’s MPD under federal control for up to 30 days, citing a crime emergency.
The Attorney General now directs MPD operations as National Guard units deploy alongside federal partners.
Trump floated extending similar crackdowns to cities like New York, Baltimore, and Oakland, raising legal and political stakes.
D.C. leaders decry federal overreach as Congress weighs possible extensions and oversight.

What the Executive Order Does—and Why It Matters

President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington, D.C., triggering a seldom-used clause in the D.C. Home Rule Act that allows federal direction of the Metropolitan Police Department for a limited period. The order assigns operational control to the Attorney General and integrates MPD with National Guard and federal law enforcement to address threats to federal functions and public safety. The authority runs up to 30 days unless Congress extends the period through legislative action.

The White House framed the move as necessary to counter a “precipitous rise in violent crime” disrupting federal operations and endangering residents, commuters, and tourists. The order requires the D.C. Mayor to provide MPD services for federal use while centralizing command under the Attorney General during the emergency. Federal agencies, including U.S. Park Police, FBI, ATF, and U.S. Marshals Service, were positioned to coordinate with Guard units in a heightened public safety surge across the nation’s capital.

How Section 740 Federalizes D.C. Policing

The D.C. Home Rule Act preserves emergency override powers for the president, reflecting Congress’s unique oversight of the District’s laws, budget, and courts. Section 740 authorizes temporary federal direction of MPD when conditions of an emergency threaten public order and federal operations. The statute’s design limits unilateral duration to 30 days without congressional extension, balancing federal responsibilities in the capital against local autonomy. That balance is now tested as federal command supersedes local control pending congressional review.

Operational leadership resides with the Attorney General, who can set priorities, allocate MPD resources, and unify tactics with federal partners. Centralized command typically accelerates decision-making, reduces interagency friction, and targets violent offenders, wanted felons, and priority crime locations. Simultaneous Guard deployment augments surge capacity for traffic control, perimeter security, and logistical support, allowing sworn officers to focus on enforcement. Rapid shifts in stop, arrest, and warrant operations commonly follow such surges, with measurable short-term effects on crime hot spots.

Trump Signals Possible Expansion Beyond D.C.

During remarks announcing the order, Trump indicated that cities such as New York City, Baltimore, and Oakland could face comparable steps, signaling a broader crackdown ethos on urban crime and disorder. The legal pathways would differ outside the District because Section 740 applies only to D.C.; any analogous action elsewhere would require distinct authorities, potentially inviting litigation and deeper federalism disputes. The message nevertheless puts big-city leaders on notice that permissive policies and public safety breakdowns could draw aggressive federal responses.

Supporters in Congress praised the announcement as overdue accountability for a capital seen to be plagued by carjackings, assaults, and open-air crime that deter tourism and burden federal workers. D.C. officials labeled the move federal overreach, asserting that local crime trends are being exaggerated and that public safety should remain a home-rule function. The hard conflict line is clear: supporters focus on immediate safety and federal duty to protect the capital; opponents emphasize local governance and civil liberties concerns during surges.

What Changes on the Ground for Residents and Businesses

Residents, commuters, and businesses should expect intensified patrols, more visible Guard presence, and coordinated warrant and interdiction operations, particularly around federal campuses and transit hubs. Tourism and downtown commerce may experience both benefits from perceived safety and disruptions from checkpoints or temporary closures. Civil liberties debates will sharpen around stop policies, curfews, or protest management if imposed. For local officers, unified federal direction alters daily tasking, command approvals, and evidence routing, with new protocols and metrics guiding enforcement actions.

After D.C., Trump Floats Federal Control in 5 Other Cities https://t.co/GdOBVj2iSs I can see a big states’ rights battle over this idea!

— Tim province (@Mrfixitnv) August 11, 2025

The next inflection point is congressional action. Lawmakers can extend federal control beyond 30 days, demand data on outcomes, or set conditions for continued integration. Legal challenges from D.C. leadership are possible, though Congress’s constitutional authority over the District complicates claims. If the administration pursues similar interventions elsewhere, statutory justifications, rules of engagement, and measurable safety outcomes will face scrutiny. For conservatives focused on order, federal duty in the capital is clear; expansion to other cities will hinge on lawful authorities and results.