D.C. Lawsuit Challenges Trump’s Federal Police Takeover Amid Legal and Political Showdown

The District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump’s move to take control of its police department, with the city’s attorney general calling the action illegal and likely to create “operational havoc” in the capital [1]. On Friday, Washington’s legal team moved swiftly in federal court to challenge a Trump administration directive that installed a federal official as the emergency head of the Metropolitan Police Department [1]. The move, which came hours after a similar escalation by the administration, has sparked a legal and political battle over the limits of federal authority over local law enforcement [1].

Washington’s police chief, Pamela Smith, has criticized the administration’s actions as a “dangerous” threat to law and order, arguing that the federal takeover would disrupt command structure and compromise the city’s ability to maintain public safety [1]. In a court filing, Smith stated that the administration’s actions would not only undermine local leadership but also threaten the autonomy of the nation’s capital [1]. The lawsuit was filed as part of a broader effort to resist what the city sees as an overreach of executive power and an affront to the principles of local governance established under the 1973 Home Rule Act [1].

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb has taken a firm stance against the takeover, arguing in court filings that the action is unlawful and would “sow chaos” in the Metropolitan Police Department [1]. Schwalb emphasized that the move violates the constitutional rights of D.C. residents and represents the “gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced” [1]. The attorney general also clarified that police officers must continue following orders from the mayor-appointed chief, not from any federal official who has not been elected by D.C. residents [1].

The dispute began after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that Terry Cole, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, would be placed in charge of the police department, including the authority to approve all orders issued to officers [1]. This directive effectively sidelined Smith, whose position is appointed by the mayor and who had previously directed officers to share information with federal immigration authorities [1]. Bondi criticized this approach, claiming it allowed for the continuation of “sanctuary policies” that limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement [1]. In response, Bondi rescinded several of Smith’s directives and placed all new policies under Cole’s authority [1].

The administration’s actions have drawn sharp criticism from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who took to social media to argue that no statute grants a federal official the authority to manage the city’s police force [1]. Bowser’s statement reflects a broader political divide, with the Democratic-led district pushing back against the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive use of federal power [1]. Meanwhile, the president has claimed the authority to assert control over local law enforcement under his emergency powers, a claim that remains untested in court [1].

Residents have also begun to notice the growing federal presence in the city, with National Guard troops deployed around major landmarks, Humvees stationed at key transportation hubs, and federal agents patrolling popular nightlife areas [1]. The visible show of force has raised concerns among locals, many of whom question the necessity and proportionality of such measures [1]. While the Trump administration has framed the actions as necessary to address rising crime and homelessness, city officials and residents argue that the current situation does not justify an unprecedented federal takeover [1].

The legal battle is now centered on the question of whether Trump’s actions are lawful under the 1973 Home Rule Act, which grants the president limited authority to direct local police for federal purposes but does not allow full control without congressional approval [1]. Schwalb has argued that the president’s role is narrowly defined by law and should not extend to overriding local leadership [1]. The Justice Department has not yet responded to the lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately comment on the matter [1].

The situation has also highlighted broader tensions between local governance and federal authority, particularly in a city where political divisions are often stark [1]. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome could set a precedent for how the balance of power is interpreted in cases of federal emergency declarations and law enforcement interventions [1]. With the president having asserted control for the first time in the city’s modern history, the implications of this dispute may extend far beyond the immediate legal battle [1].

Source:

[1] https://fortune.com/2025/08/15/dc-police-trump-federal-takeover-lawsuit-home-rule-national-guard/