Former President Donald Trump just took full control over the Washington D.C. police department. He used a little-known legal clause that is rarely used to institute this unprecedented takeover. This abrupt change has sparked widespread outrage from ex-police officers and leaders of color. It was a heady announcement to launch an ambitious new campaign. To long-term cement his oversight of the police and make himself the most important player in the long-term crime conversation expected in the capital, he intends to ask Congress to approve permanent control.
As part of his new strategy, Trump called for the removal of homeless individuals from the streets of Washington D.C. The initiative was met with immediate blowback, especially from activists who claim shelters are too dangerous. Karoline Leavitt, then Trump’s White House press secretary, went even further. Instead, she threatened those who decline shelter services with citations or possible imprisonment.
Trump’s toxic police takeover paved the way for the deployment of 800 National Guard troops. He deployed federal officers from agencies such as the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to pacify the city. This unprecedented deployment is perhaps the largest step forward in his ongoing war on crime. This is all happening despite several factors, including data indicating that crime rates in Washington D.C. have recently reached their lowest levels in thirty years.
His approach to crime and policing as administration has been met with wariness, even from former police chiefs. His hardline tactics make sense to no one except his staunchest supporters, who are convinced that toughness itself is the answer. Harry Dunn, a former officer, commented, “Everybody wants a safe community. No argument there at all, zero. Donald Trump is taking a hammer to an issue that would require maybe a screwdriver.”
Further adding a layer of controversy on top of his aggressive policing tactics, Trump has been condemned for his response to the January 6 insurrection. Yet even still, he continues to minimize the violent attempts to overthrow democracy at the Capitol. He refers to January 6 as a “day of love” and the insurrectionists as “warriors.” He has actively worked to shield the architects of the insurrection from accountability. You will be concentrating on pardoning those convicted or awaiting trial for behavior related to January 6. You’re going to lead a purge of those federal prosecutors and FBI agents working on those investigations.
Each of these decisions by the former president has resulted in brutal criticism from those who lived the terror and horror that was January 6. Aqulilino Gonell, a Capitol police officer, expressed his anger. In the aftermath of the insurrection, he criticized Trump’s failure to quickly deploy the National Guard. He stated, “Where the fuck is the president? Why is the national guard not being deployed?”
Opponents highlight Trump’s inability to positively address crime in the most dire of moments. Michael Fanone, another former police officer, highlighted that past National Guard deployments during emergencies were ineffective, remarking, “There were other times during crime emergencies in which we mobilized the national guard, and they were worthless each and every time.”
Despite these criticisms, Trump remains steadfast in his belief that strong measures are necessary to address crime in Washington D.C. His focus has spurred its own conversation on improving accountability and responsibility among law enforcement and community leaders. Some of the ex–commissioners and inspectors general have questioned whether Trump’s approach will bring about good outcomes or just make bad problems worse.
“They’re an investigative unit. They don’t go out and lock people up for fucking pissing in the park or drinking a fucking beer.” – Donald Trump
As the debate over Trump’s aggressive policing tactics intensifies, this comes at a time when he is looking to expand his oversight and control over law enforcement in Washington D.C. He defends his actions by saying that they’re intended to promote safer communities. Most are asking whether his top down, one-size-fits-all measures will address the underlying drivers of crime or just create more problems.