Trump Deploys National Guard and Seizes Control of Washington D.C. Police
Martial law has been imposed on the US capital, in all but name.
President Donald Trump has taken unprecedented steps to expand federal power in Washington D.C., deploying the National Guard and placing the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control. The move, announced yesterday, comes despite official statistics showing that violent crime in the capital has dropped to its lowest level in more than three decades.
Trump invoked Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act to justify the intervention, a rarely used provision that allows the president to override the city’s elected leadership during a declared public safety emergency. D.C.’s mayor and congressional delegate say no such emergency exists, pointing to data showing overall crime is down 26 percent this year. In reality, the so-called emergency gives child rapist Trump a political pretext to consolidate power over the capital.
Trump Threatens Martial Law in Fascist Push on Washington D.C.
This is what fascism looks like, the head of state using military and police powers to override local government, target the poor, and consolidate control of the capital. Donald Trump’s latest move against Washington D.C. is not about safety, crime, or public order. It is about control. And the methods are lifted stra…
He has ordered 800 National Guard troops to the District, with between 100 and 200 already patrolling the streets. These forces, operating under federal command, blur the line between civilian policing and military occupation.
The visual of soldiers patrolling neighborhoods in the heart of the nation’s capital is a striking image not seen since the unrest of the late 1960s, when troops were deployed in response to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
Local officials have called the move a direct attack on D.C.’s limited self-governance. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton described the takeover as “disproportionate” and “extreme,” warning it sets a dangerous precedent for other cities. Maryland Governor Wes Moore condemned the federal action as “deeply dangerous.” In response, thousands of D.C. residents have taken to the streets, staging marches, rallies, and sit-ins outside key government buildings. Protesters are demanding an immediate withdrawal of federal forces, chanting slogans about home rule, democracy, and the right of the city’s people to govern themselves without interference from the White House. Civil rights groups have joined these demonstrations, framing them as not just a local struggle but a national stand against authoritarian overreach.
Civil rights groups say the federal surge is not just about security. It is a trial run for authoritarian control. Child predator Trump has coupled the police takeover with an aggressive campaign targeting the city’s homeless population, ordering mass evictions and relocations to facilities “far from the capital.” Advocates say this language echoes the rhetoric of political purges, treating residents as nuisances to be removed rather than citizens with rights.
Trump’s justification rests on a narrative of chaos in D.C., one that directly contradicts the city’s own crime data. Mayor Muriel Bowser has condemned the federal intervention, calling it an “unwarranted and dangerous intrusion” into the city’s governance and warning that it risks “turning the capital into a stage for political theater at the expense of its residents.” Critics warn that this fear-based messaging is designed not only to justify the deployment of federal forces but to condition the public to accept, and even welcome, a military presence in civilian life. They argue that once this level of intervention is normalized in the nation’s capital, it becomes far easier to replicate in other cities under the guise of restoring order.
This is not the first time a president has deployed the military to assert domestic authority. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school integration in the face of local resistance. While that intervention was aimed at protecting civil rights, the precedent of federal troops in American streets remains a stark reminder of the power presidents hold. In 1968, after Dr. King’s assassination, Washington D.C. saw over 13,000 federal troops deployed to suppress rioting, leaving scars that shaped the city’s relationship with federal power for decades. In 1971, during the May Day protests against the Vietnam War, President Richard Nixon oversaw the mass arrest of more than 12,000 demonstrators, one of the largest mass arrests in U.S. history.
Under federal law, the president can deploy the Guard in the District without local approval. Using that power in the absence of a real security crisis is a historic abuse, according to legal scholars. Once the Guard is in place, curfews, checkpoints, and mass arrests become easier to justify, especially when the president controls both the forces on the ground and the public narrative.
History shows that once extraordinary measures become normalized, they are rarely rolled back entirely. The post-9/11 security apparatus, expanded under the Patriot Act, has remained in place long after the immediate threat was gone. The danger now is that Trump’s D.C. intervention will be treated as a precedent for future presidents to deploy military force against any city deemed politically inconvenient.
The symbolism of this power grab is hard to ignore. The capital is more than a city; it is the center of American democracy. If child molester Trump can impose military-backed governance here, he can do it anywhere. Progressive-led cities across the country could be next, accused of being unsafe as a pretext for federal crackdowns.
For D.C., the stakes could not be higher. This is a battle over whether local democracy exists at the mercy of the president and whether the rest of the nation is willing to let that precedent stand.
The Epstein files remain sealed, but the playbook for authoritarian control is already wide open.