President Donald Trump issued an executive order Monday placing Washington DC’s police force under federal control, invoking emergency powers that face potential constitutional challenges over scope, duration and procedural safeguards.
The order cites Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which grants the president authority over local police during “special conditions of an emergency nature.” Its status as a federal district rather than a state gives the federal government unique oversight authority over DC.
However, the statute requires genuine emergency conditions that threaten federal operations, not just general public safety concerns. If challenged, the Trump administration would likely have to convince a court that DC’s crime statistics truly constitute the type of crisis the law anticipates.
By way of statistical justification, Trump’s executive order stated “the District of Columbia now has a higher violent crime, murder, and robbery rate than all 50 States.” In considering whether these findings justify the White House’s invocation of Section 740, a court might question the administration’s decisions to compare DC, a dense urban area of 700,000 residents, to entire states that include rural and suburban areas with typically lower crime rates.
The order also excluded key context regarding crime trends. According to data released by DC’s Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime has been trending downward since 2023. By August 11, 2023, DC had seen 163 homicides, 110 cases of sex abuse, 888 assaults with a dangerous weapon, and 2,105 robberies that year. Motor vehicle thefts—categorized by DC police as a property crime, not a violent crime—numbered 4,443. As of August 11, 2025, those figures are: 99 homicides, 54 cases of sex abuse, 533 assaults with a dangerous weapon, and 898 robberies. Car theft is also down, at 2,904. In 2024, violent and property crimes were down across the board. In January, shortly before Trump took office, the US Attorney’s Office for DC announced that violent crime in the district had hit a 30-year low.
In addition to questions over whether an emergency declaration is warranted, the order appears to contain constitutional vulnerabilities insofar as it lacks procedural safeguards, hearing requirements, or clear standards for when the emergency declaration will end, potentially violating due process rights. The indefinite suspension of local democratic governance could also raise separation of powers concerns.
