President Donald Trump vowed to take over law enforcement in the nation’s capital – and he did. He promised it would slash the crime rate – and it did. Now the commander-in-chief says he’s headed for Chicago once done in DC – and, at this point, believing he will is probably the safe bet. But the District of Columbia is a federal district, more or less under federal authority already; other cities are not. What, then, can the president really do to make good on his latest promise? As it turns out, quite a lot.
From DC to Chicago, and Beyond!
President Trump announced Friday, August 22, that the Kennedy Center in the nation’s capital will host the FIFA World Cup draw in December. Then he dropped a bomb on the progressive leaders of cities across America and the news industry alike: When he’s done in DC, he plans to branch out and give a handful of crime-riddled Democrat-led cities the same treatment.
“After we do this, we’ll go to another location and make it safe also. We’re going to make our country very safe; we’re going to make our cities very, very safe. Chicago’s a mess. You have an incompetent mayor – grossly incompetent – and we’ll straighten that one out probably next,” Trump said during the national address. “So I think Chicago will be our next. And then we’ll help with New York.” Vice President JD Vance then added Los Angeles to the list.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, the Democrat Trump called “grossly incompetent,” had his own thoughts on the matter, of course. “Sending in the National Guard would only serve to destabilize our city and undermine our public safety efforts,” he said in a statement.
Chaos in the Capital? Not Quite
DC Mayor Muriel Bowser also protested the president’s actions in her city, but to no avail. And, despite her protests that crime was already down and that federalization would make things worse, the situation actually has improved in the capital city since the new sheriff, so to speak, has been in town.
The Trump administration stepped in on August 11. By August 22, carjackings were down 83%, robberies by 46%, car theft by 21%, and violent crime in general by 22%. What’s more, the city, for the first time in decades, went a full week without a single homicide. And all this was accomplished without cracking down on the people themselves. If anything, the administration relaxed some of the restrictive policies put in place by the progressive city government. Jeanine Pirro, the US Attorney for Washington, DC, and the aforementioned figurative “new sheriff in town,” has ordered prosecutors not to pursue felony charges for folks carrying rifles and shotguns in public. Armed civilians roam the streets alongside soldiers and federal law enforcement, but it hasn’t turned into a bloodbath, and crime is down in general? How confusing this must be to the progressive mind!
But don’t let that fool you – the feds do mean business. While they aren’t harassing actual law-abiding citizens (armed or otherwise), they have reportedly made a whopping 630 arrests and seized 86 illegal firearms since August 11. In short, the president promised to clean up the nation’s capital, and that’s precisely what he’s doing.
Trump May Want to Clean Up Other Cities – But Can He?
Does the president have the authority to deploy federal law enforcement and the National Guard to other cities across America, though? The short answer is yes – but there’s a not-so-short caveat. A few laws come together to grant Trump the power to federally police other American cities under some circumstances while simultaneously limiting his power in other ways.
First off, let’s separate federal law enforcement from the military, as the two are distinct here. Federal law enforcement can operate in any state and city, with or without the consent of the local government, so long as the focus remains on the enforcement of federal laws. States, cities, and counties can, however, enact their own “sanctuary” policies that prohibit local police from cooperating with the feds. While the Constitution’s supremacy clause establishes this federal jurisdiction, the amendment also prohibits the feds from commandeering local or state law enforcement resources and cooperation.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 – put in place after the Union used the Army to police several states – prohibits the use of the military as a domestic police force. This includes the National Guard when it’s operating under federal direction. The Insurrection Act of 1807, however, does allow the president to deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement. Invoking it suspends the Posse Comitatus rule temporarily, the Brennan Center for Justice explains. It can be invoked whenever insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence makes it impossible to enforce federal law through the usual procedures or whenever a state’s legislature requests assistance in putting down an insurrection.
However, the law doesn’t explicitly define the terms insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence, and the Supreme Court ruled in 1827 that “the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and … his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.” In other words, it’s an insurrection or rebellion or dangerous domestic violence if the president says so and declares an emergency.
Furthermore, the Justice Department has in the past opined that, so long as the military is just there to protect federal functions and property, it isn’t actually engaging in law enforcement – meaning it isn’t violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
These interpretations are all up for debate, of course, and progressive city and state leaders are already suing the Trump administration. But unless the courts rule against the president, his directive to clean up crime in the cities of America is functionally legal. So look out, liberal cities: Trump’s coming to town.
Dig Deeper Into the Themes Discussed in This Article!
Liberty Vault: The Constitution of the United States
