When it comes to reducing crime in Washington, D.C., the results speak for themselves. In just twelve days, President Donald Trump turned the nation's capital into what he aptly called a "crime-free zone" through smart law enforcement policies, federal coordination, and the deployment of National Guard troops. This wasn't some political gimmick or campaign promise—it was a decisive action that delivered immediate, measurable results for residents who had been living under the constant threat of violent crime.
Even Mayor Muriel Bowser, initially skeptical of Operation Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful, came around once she witnessed the dramatic improvement firsthand.
She publicly credited the federal surge with enhancing the Metropolitan Police Department's effectiveness, proving that when politics takes a backseat to public safety, everyone wins. The Washington Post editorial board even praised Bowser for choosing cooperation over what they called "La Résistance stunts." By working with the Trump administration instead of reflexively opposing it, Bowser secured more influence over how federal officers get deployed throughout the city.
This collaborative approach has produced undeniable success. Violent crime plummeted, homicides virtually disappeared, and residents finally felt safe walking their own streets. You'd think every D.C. official would celebrate these achievements and work to maintain this progress. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
But Attorney General Brian Schwalb apparently believes that opposing Trump matters more than protecting D.C. residents. Despite witnessing weeks of dramatically reduced crime rates, Schwalb filed a lawsuit demanding the withdrawal of National Guard troops from the capital. His reasoning? "No American city should have the US military — particularly out-of-state military who are not accountable to the residents and untrained in local law enforcement — policing its streets." Never mind that these same troops helped create the safest environment D.C. has seen in years.
Schwalb's lawsuit claims the deployment violates Washington's autonomy under the Home Rule Act because it occurred without mayoral consent. He argues that military involvement in domestic law enforcement runs "roughshod over a fundamental tenet of American democracy." This sounds impressive until you examine the actual legal framework governing the District.
The reality is far different from Schwalb's inflammatory rhetoric. Section 740 of the Home Rule Act explicitly grants presidents authority to take control of the Metropolitan Police Department. Nothing in the act prohibits presidents from deploying the National Guard to support local law enforcement. Unlike state governors who control their respective National Guards, the D.C. National Guard operates under direct presidential command—a key distinction that undermines Schwalb's entire argument.
ICYMI: Lisa Cook May Be in Real Trouble Now
Furthermore, D.C.'s Home Rule Act doesn't grant the city complete autonomous jurisdiction over law enforcement and prosecution. These responsibilities remain with the federal government, making Washington different from other American cities. The Posse Comitatus Act, which Schwalb likely hopes will support his case, applies primarily to sovereign states rather than federal jurisdictions like the District. More importantly, the Act only applies to fully "federalized" National Guard units, not those operating in "state active duty" status, which is precisely how Trump mobilized the D.C. Guard.
What makes this resistance particularly galling is that Schwalb can literally see the positive impact of Trump's policies. Schwalb has witnessed firsthand how federal support transformed his city's crime problem. Yet he still chooses political resistance over public safety.
This is exactly what the likes of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-Ill.) and other Democrat governors are doing. Reflexively resisting Trump to spite him at the expense of the safety of their own citizens. They won’t clean up the crime in their states and cities, but they cry foul when Trump steps in—even after seeing the success in D.C.
The choice facing D.C. officials couldn't be clearer: continue the policies that made their city safer, or prioritize political resistance at the expense of public safety. Sadly, for some, fighting Trump remains more important than fighting crime.
