Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Several Democratic lawmakers have unveiled a joint resolution aimed at countering President Donald Trump’s recent initiative to utilize the services of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. This move comes as part of his effort to address the rising crime rates in the nation’s capital.
The resolution states, in part, “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That pursuant to section 740(b) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act … the emergency determined by the President on August 11, 2025, in the Executive Order titled ‘Declaring a crime emergency in the District of Columbia’ is hereby terminated.”
In an emailed statement to Fox News Digital, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson strongly defended the President’s actions.
DC Crime Response: A Bold Initiative or Overreach?
Jackson emphasized, “President Trump is taking bold action to address the out-of-control crime that has been plaguing Washington D.C. for far too long. But instead of supporting what should be a bipartisan measure to Make DC Safe Again, Democrats are burying their heads in the sand, denying there is a problem, and carrying the torch for dangerous criminals that terrorize DC communities.”
She continued, asserting that D.C. residents recognize the city’s reality, stating, “Crime was out of control, and President Trump’s actions are making the city safer. The left’s refusal to support widely popular issues with the American public – like stopping violent crime – are why their approval ratings are at historic lows and will continue to tank.”
The House Democrats who are co-sponsoring the resolution include Reps. Jamie Raskin from Maryland, Robert Garcia from California, and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton from the District of Columbia. Additionally, Sen. Chris Van Hollen from Maryland plans to introduce it in the Senate, according to a press release from the House Judiciary Committee.
Legal Battles Loom Over Police Control
Raskin voiced concerns regarding the implications of Trump’s administration for the autonomy of the D.C. police. He claimed, “Trump has made clear that his efforts in D.C., where 700,000 taxpaying American citizens lack the protections of statehood, are part of a broader plan to militarize and federalize the streets of cities around America whose citizens voted against him.”
The Maryland representative further explained that the legislation aims to halt Trump’s purported hostile takeover of the D.C. police force, highlighting, “Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, Congress has given the president the power only to direct the Mayor to make the Metropolitan Police Department available for a specific federal purpose but has given him no power simply to take over the Department.”
He argued that there is no federal emergency justifying such a takeover, even if Congress sought to utilize its lawmaking power. The joint resolution indicates that the President failed to outline emergency conditions that necessitate the D.C. police’s federal deployment.
In the executive order issued earlier this week, Trump stated, “I determine that special conditions of an emergency nature exist that require the use of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (Metropolitan Police force) for Federal purposes …”
According to the order, “Effective immediately, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall provide the services of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.”
Legislative Implications of the Home Rule Act
The Home Rule Act, referenced by the President, notes that police services used for federal purposes will cease if Congress passes a joint resolution for termination. This means the resolution’s approval is pivotal for determining the future deployment of the police.
The provisions assert that such services shall terminate either when the emergency ends, thirty days after they are first made available, or upon Congress’s enactment of a termination resolution—whichever occurs first.
This conflict over police control reflects a broader national debate about crime, police authority, and the balance of state versus federal power. The resolution’s fate is uncertain, but it underscores the increasing political polarization surrounding law enforcement and public safety.
Looking Ahead: The Political Stakes
As legislative battles unfold, the outcome may influence public perceptions of the candidates involved in upcoming elections, potentially reshaping the political landscape in the capital. The American public is keenly watching how this controversy evolves and what it means for the future of local law enforcement and federal power.
In this politically charged environment, the ability to address crime effectively while respecting civil liberties and local governance remains a pressing concern for lawmakers on both sides.
Fox News Digital’s Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report
