President Donald Trump has warned he may once again federalize Washington, D.C.’s police force, escalating tensions with Mayor Muriel Bowser over immigration enforcement. The dispute follows Bowser’s refusal to have local police cooperate with ICE operations, raising questions about federal authority and the balance of power in the nation’s capital.
Trump Cites Crime, Threatens Emergency Measures
In an early morning social media post, Trump argued that his prior intervention had produced significant improvements in public safety while suggesting crime could return if cooperation with ICE ended. He warned that he was prepared to declare a new national emergency and reassert federal authority if necessary.
The White House offered no clarification on whether Trump intends to act on his threat or seek to reinstate the lapsed emergency order. Later in the day, Trump told reporters he believed the city was in great shape but stressed that federalization remained an option should crime rise again.
Bowser Limits Federal Coordination
On September 2, Bowser issued an order outlining how the Metropolitan Police Department would continue to coordinate with federal partners, including the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Secret Service. ICE was deliberately omitted from that list, reflecting her administration’s position that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, not a local one.
Speaking shortly before the emergency order expired, Bowser reiterated that immigration enforcement was not part of MPD’s mission and would not become one, even as the city continued to engage with other federal agencies on matters of public safety. Her comments reinforced a long-standing view in D.C. that local police should not be diverted from their core functions.
Security Leaders Warn of Risks
A group of retired senior officers and former civilian defense officials warned that using the National Guard for law enforcement risks mixing military and civilian authority. They cited dangers for both the public and servicemembers, noting that such measures should remain exceptional. Among the signatories was former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden.
The statement highlighted that, even though presidents have broad emergency powers, relying too heavily on military deployments for domestic issues can erode trust in civilian policing and establish long-term precedents. Critics argue that repeatedly using these powers suggests a move toward making extraordinary federal actions in local governance the norm.
Broader Political Context
Trump’s threat comes as the House considers several D.C.-related measures, including lowering the juvenile trial age for serious crimes and curbing the city’s control over sentencing and judicial selection. These proposals show how Congress and the executive branch still have significant power over the district, even with the limited home rule authority given in 1973.
The controversy is also reflective of a broader trend within the Trump administration’s use of immigration enforcement to project federal power outside of border states. Critics argue that tying immigration status to public safety aims to grow ICE’s footprint in routine policing. Supporters say that such practices are necessary to deter illegal entry and residence.
A Look Ahead
The feud between Trump and Bowser captures the delicate balance of power in Washington, D.C. Local self-government is under the umbrella of federal power. Any new move to federalize the city police force could have significant precedents for the place of immigration enforcement in municipal government.
For continuing updates on the intersection of immigration policy, federal authority, and local law enforcement, visit ImmigrationQuestion.com. Get answers to your immigration questions from licensed immigration attorneys. For attorneys, use our innovative 2-in-1 case management software to grow your practice. Download our free app on Google Play and the Apple App Store.
Resources:
**ImmigrationQuestion.com is a third-party platform that serves as a meeting ground for licensed immigration attorneys and people with immigration questions. It is not a law firm. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by USCIS or AILA. Attorneys on this platform are independent and have the discretion to offer a free consultation and/or set their fees under the law.
