Dem
47
GOP
53
We had a hard time figuring out the wording of that headline. On one hand, we don't want to soft-pedal the many and varied abuses of power in which Donald Trump is indulging. On the other hand, we don't want to engage in New York Post-style exaggeration for the purpose of dramatic effect. We decided that sending troops to D.C. without any real justification is close enough to qualify as an "invasion."
Several times last week, Trump promised that he was going to announce a decision on his plans for the national capital on Monday morning. Reality TV star that he is, there is absolutely no way he would have teased this only to declare "I've decided that everything's copacetic, and that I do not need to take any action." And so, it comes as no surprise whatsoever that Trump has decided there is "an emergency" in D.C., and so has exercised authority under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to take control of the Capitol police, and also to deploy National Guard troops. His justification is that the District "[H]as been overtaken by criminals and drugged out maniacs and homeless people." The press conference was rambling and disorganized, and eventually devolved into a laundry list of Trump talking points. For example, you wouldn't think that trans girls playing high school sports would have anything to do with crime in Washington, DC, and yet Trump got it in there.
As we have written before, crime is not, in fact, out of control in the capital. In fact, there has been a consistent downward trend over the last 15 years (excepting 2023), with the result that crime is at a 30-year low right now. Trump is targeting Washington because it's an excellent whipping boy for his purposes:
Incidentally, this is a case where Trump is not only misrepresenting the truth, but it's 100% clear he knows it. During his press conference, he said that "murders in 2023 reached the highest rate probably ever." That spike, the exception to the overall trend, was almost certainly caused by the pandemic. And it's the kind of "evidence" that comes from looking carefully at the actual data, and then spinning that data as aggressively as is possible. If he was completely making things up, he would not have specifically singled out that one year.
Note that, during his press conference, Trump declared that part of the reason he made this decision is that he insists that D.C. police must be treated with respect. He somehow forgot to mention that he just pardoned hundreds of people who beat those very same police. Further, a number of people have noticed that, back in 2021, and then again in 2024, Trump claimed that it was then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who decided not to use the National Guard during the 1/6 insurrection, and that the decision was out of his hands. That's a very different take on presidential power than the one he expressed yesterday.
In the end, this may be another case where Trump is painting himself into a corner. According to the law, the "emergency" can only last 30 days. It is not probable that there will be a high-profile incident during that time, since D.C. was already pretty calm, and since most people are clever enough to keep their noses clean while there are federalized cops AND national guard walking around. Maybe the administration will ignore the time limit. Maybe, once yesterday's press conference has faded from memory, and the news cycle has moved onto something new (more Epstein revelations?), Trump will quietly withdraw the National Guard and return control of the police department to local officials.
The more likely outcome, however, is that Trump finds another city to target when he needs a new distraction, or otherwise has a use for some red meat to feed the base. Indeed, he hinted at this possibility yesterday, suggesting New York City, Chicago or Los Angeles could be next up. One problem here is that voters might start to notice that he keeps invading American cities for no clear reason. Another problem is that California is currently fighting him in court over his use of the National Guard, and the case is going poorly for the administration.
So, the future is murky. However, one longer-term possibility, once Trump is out of office, is that his use and abuse of the District will create serious momentum for statehood. This is something that probably should already have happened anyhow, and increased sympathy for the residents there can only help that cause. It is true that statehood bills are filibusterable, and that is exactly what the Republicans would try to do, knowing full well that D.C. statehood would mean two more Democratic senators. However, it takes only 51 votes, or 50 plus the tiebreaker, to create a(nother) carve-out. And if there's any carve-out that carries a relatively low risk of payback, this surely would have to be it. What would the Republicans do the next time they had the trifecta, use their newfound power to make Mar-a-Lago a state? There just aren't that many potential states out there. (Z)