Questions remain across Inland Northwest after Trump federalizes D.C. police department

President Donald Trump’s announcement Monday that he will take control of Washington, D.C.’s police department and deploy the National Guard in the nation’s capital – and his suggestion that he could take similar actions in other Democratically controlled jurisdictions – has stirred questions about what the move means for cities across the country.

The move also sparked backlash from several members of Washington’s Congressional delegation, while Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown said it’s “too hypothetical to predict what would happen if President Trump deployed National Guard troops to Spokane, but he has continued to spread misinformation about crime in cities across the country.”

Surrounded by members of his cabinet at the White House, Trump said during a news conference Monday that he wanted to “rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor, and worse.”

“This is liberation day in D.C., and we’re going to take our capital back; we’re taking it back,” Trump said.

Trump announced Monday that he would put the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department “under direct federal control” and deploy members of the National Guard to “help re-establish law and order and public safety.”

“And they’re going to be allowed to do their job properly,” Trump said.

In the announcement, Trump cited Section 740 of the 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which allows the president to federalize the city police for 48 hours before notifying Congress and for a total of 30 days before he needs congressional approval.

According to NBC News, National Guard troops are expected on the ground in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.

Trump suggested Monday that he could look to make similar moves elsewhere.

“Other cities are hopefully watching this,” Trump said. “Maybe they’ll self-clean up, and maybe they’ll self-do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem.”

Local officials in D.C. have objected to the move, including D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who said Monday that “there is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia.”

According to the city’s police department, violent crime fell in the city by 26% from 2024 to 2025.

The move has drawn praise from some, including Republican Idaho Sen. Jim Risch, who noted that many will travel to the nation’s capital next year in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

“President Trump is restoring law and order in our nation’s capital. Idaho serves as a model of low crime and safe streets. As we gear up for America 250, many Idahoans will visit D.C. and should feel safe when celebrating our nation,” Risch said in a statement Monday. “Change is needed and President Trump will deliver.”

Washington’s senators, though, quickly criticized the move. Sen. Patty Murray said Monday that the president’s “authoritarian takeover of Washington, D.C., is not a serious effort to make our nation’s capital safer.”

Murray noted that violent crime in Washington, D.C., is at a 30-year low, and suggested that “Trump is trying desperately to change the subject from his connection to the Epstein files, weak jobs numbers, and the skyrocketing costs that are hitting every family because of his tariffs.”

Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell called the move “another absurd attempt by the President to use emergency powers where they don’t apply.” Cantwell added that the president should allow local officials to police their jurisdictions while federal officials focus on other matters, including sex trafficking and money laundering.

“It may take a while for the courts to act on this overreach by President Trump, who is simply trying to project power,” Cantwell said. “But the American people know there are better ways to solve their problem than this authoritarian move.”

As Trump suggests he could look to take additional action in other Democratically led cities, it remains unclear what Monday’s announcement could mean for Spokane and Washington state.

Mike Faulk, a spokesperson for Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, said the attorney general’s office is “following developments.”

“As we’ve been doing, we’ll defend Washingtonians from any presidential abuse of power that targets us,” Faulk said.

Brown said Monday crime is down nationally and “that is the case locally, too.”

“Public safety remains my top priority and that is why I proposed, and Spokane voters overwhelmingly passed, last year’s Community Safety Sales Tax,” Brown said. “The most helpful move the federal government could take to ensure safety right now is to restore funding for domestic violence, drug intervention, and housing programs that are proven to keep communities safe and stable,”

While previous presidents have tried to use the influence of the office to reduce crime, Todd Schaefer, a political science professor at Central Washington University, said Monday that crime has typically been handled on a state and local level, rather than by the federal government.

“It always kills me when presidents promise some stuff about crime and education, because they don’t have a lot of authority or money in that,” Schaefer said.

Other presidents, Schaefer said, have sought to take a tough-on-crime approach, including Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. However, those presidents often tried to persuade local authorities to act through funding, rather than the confrontational approach Trump has taken.

“I don’t know that he can take over, just like, I don’t think he can take over Yakima High School or Davis High School,” Schaefer said. “I don’t think there’s really a direct mechanism to do that.”

The federal government, Schaefer said, can coerce state and local governments into action in certain scenarios, though this “is usually through money.”

Schaefer added that the most typical route for the federal government to encourage a local government into action is through “financial incentives.”