Why Washington DC is not part of any US state and its special status allows Trump to take control of the police

The mayor of Washington DC, Muriel Bowser, considered unjustified the intervention of the National Guard, which described as a “disturbing and unprecedented” measure.

The capital authorities claim that, since in 2023 there was a serious rebound in crime, the trend is descending in almost all crimes.

On the other hand, Trump's measure has given wings to the old vindication of Washington DC to abandon its special status and match the rest of the United States cities in autonomy and representativeness.

We analyze what the legal regime that makes Washington DC is different and has facilitated Trump's intervention.

Washington DC has a unique administrative status: it does not belong to any of the 50 states, but is a Federal District under direct jurisdiction of the United States Congress by order of the current Constitution of 1787.

The Magna Carta established that, given the need to maintain a neutral place to carry out the functions of the Federal Government, guaranteeing its safety and operation, the capital should not be a state but a district under the jurisdiction of Congress.

After decades of pressure to expand the democratic rights of its residents, in 1973 the Bicameral Parliament approved a law that allowed the city to choose its own mayor and the Council of the Columbia district, legislative body to manage local affairs.

However, autonomy remained limited: all the laws and budgets approved by the Council must go through a period of review of the Congress, which can modify or veto them.

In addition, unlike the states, Washington DC does not have full representation in Parliament: it lacks senators and only has a delegate in the House of Representatives, which can participate in committees and debates but not vote in plenary.

“712,816 DC residents without a vote in Congress,” proclaims on its cover the mayor's website, which denounces that the inhabitants of the capital “comply with all the obligations of US citizenship and, nevertheless, the representation is denied.”

The weight of Washington DC in the Capitol is comparable to that of the island of Puerto Rico, an associated free state that has a voice but does not vote in the legislative.

For decades, political leaders and part of the population promote the movement for status, which seeks to turn this city number 51.

They argue that only in this way its residents would obtain equal rights against the rest of the country and legal protections that prevent unilateral federal interventions, such as the one that Donald Trump ordered this week.

They claim that the capital pays federal taxes and has more inhabitants than territories that do have full representation in the Capitol, such as Wyoming or Vermont.

Several attempts to change their status in recent decades culminated in failure, mainly due to the resistance of the Republican party, since Washington DC is traditionally a Democratic Bastion and, in case of assuming seats in Parliament, progressive formation would probably be taken.

In 2021, when the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, legislators approved a bill to turn the capital into state number 51.

The initiative, however, never voted in the Senate and was archived.

Donald Trump's maneuver to take control of safety in Washington DC relied on a specific provision of local legislation.

The Autonomy Law of the Columbia district includes, in its section 740, a clause authorizing the US President to assume command of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District “for federal purposes” and “in special emergency conditions”.

Trump invoked that power declaring an “public security emergency” in the capital, after ensuring that crime has been aggravated.

With that legal base, the Washington DC police ordered to temporarily federalize and put it under the supervision of the Attorney General, PAM Bondi, designated by the White House to direct the operation.

According to the law, direct presidential control over the Local Police cannot exceed 30 days, unless Congress approves an extension.

As for the National Guard, unlike what happens in the states, in Washington DC it is under direct control of the president, not a governor, so Trump has been able to deploy it to his will.

On this occasion he ordered the shipment of 800 National Guard troops, in addition to hundreds of federal agencies such as the FBI, the ATF and the DEA.

His authority on the National Guard, combined with the powers granted by section 740, allowed Trump to assume command in terms of security without counting on the city authorities, which consider the unjustified measure.

“We do not control the Washington DC National Guard or we have senators or full autonomy. That is why many other inhabitants of Washington have been heard from the state of Washington DC,” the mayor Bowser protested, in a message on social network X after the president's order.

The deployment of troops and the control of the police in Washington DC is interpreted from some sectors such as the beginning of a crime campaign that Donald Trump can extend soon to other cities in the United States.

However, it could not be replicated with the same ease in cities that are part of a State, where the local police depend on municipal and state authorities, and the National Guard is under the governor's command.

The president cannot assume control of a police department or order the deployment of the National Guard in a city without the consent of the state government, unless invoked exceptional powers granted by Congress.

Among them stands out the insurrection law of 1807, which allows us to use armed forces or federalize the national guard only in extreme situations, such as insurrections or generalized violence, and generally requires demonstrating that local authorities cannot maintain order.

Based on this old standard, last June Trump ordered 700 Marines and about 4,000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles to dissolve street protests against his deportation policy of undocumented migrants.

Ess deployment of forces was performed against the will of the governor of California, the Democrat Gavin Newsom.

California sued the federal government claiming that the deployment violated the current law, which prohibits the use of armed forces for internal order tasks without specific authorization.

The case, which is in court, could sit on the limits of the presidential authority in local security.

For jurists, the key difference is that Washington DC is under direct federal command, while the autonomy of the other cities is protected by the Constitution.

Thus, any federal intervention not agreed with local authorities would face not only political resistance, but also the risk of being blocked in court.

Subscribe here To our new newsletter to receive every Friday a selection of our best content of the week.

And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download the latest version and act.