Much of the outrage over President Donald Trump’s decision to take control of Washington, D.C.’s police force ignores a basic fact of law: the nation’s capital is not a state, and the president’s authority over it is fundamentally different from his authority over the fifty states.
The Constitution gives Congress “exclusive legislation” over the District of Columbia. In 1973, Congress passed the Home Rule Act, allowing limited self-government but keeping the power to override it. Section 740 of that law explicitly allows the president to assume control of the D.C. police during an emergency. That is the authority Trump used. It is legal, it is written into federal statute, and it is unique to D.C.
No such statute exists for states. Under the Tenth Amendment, police powers belong to the states themselves. Governors run their police forces, and the president cannot simply take them over. The only avenues for federal intervention in a state’s law enforcement are narrow and extraordinary. The Insurrection Act of 1807 permits active-duty military involvement only when there is open rebellion or when a state refuses to enforce federal law. Department of Justice civil rights lawsuits can target departments with systemic violations, but they do not amount to a federal “takeover” of policing.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 adds another layer of limitation. This law prohibits the U.S. Army and Air Force — and by policy, the Navy and Marine Corps — from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities unless expressly authorized by Congress or the Constitution. In plain language, it means the president cannot use the military as a domestic police force on a whim. The only way around it is through exceptions like the Insurrection Act, which sets a high bar that most situations simply do not meet. National Guard troops can perform policing duties only when under state authority (Title 32). Once federalized (Title 10), they too fall under Posse Comitatus restrictions unless one of those rare exceptions is invoked.
This is where many critics miss the bigger picture: when laws go too far in one direction, they invite equally drastic corrections in the other. Take bail reform as an example. The stated goal — reducing pretrial detention for non-violent offenders — was both reasonable and necessary. But when reform was expanded without adequate safeguards, it produced predictable results: repeat offenders cycling through the system, public safety declining, and public trust eroding. That erosion fuels political will for sweeping crackdowns, often more severe than the original problem justified. In policy, as in physics, action produces reaction. Ignore that reality and you guarantee the pendulum will swing harder than you expect — and often in ways you won’t like.
Those preaching that “the sky is falling” whenever there is pushback on reform refuse to confront a more uncomfortable truth: in too many cases, offenders are back on the streets before their victims are even out of the hospital. Communities see that. They feel it. And when people living with the consequences are ignored in favor of abstract talking points, they will eventually vote for anyone who promises to make it stop — even if the cure is harsher than the disease.
The lesson is straightforward: the president’s action in D.C. sets no precedent for the states. The capital’s governance structure is an anomaly, created by design. In the states, any similar move would face higher legal thresholds, more political resistance, and far greater risk of being struck down in court. Understanding those differences — and the guardrails like the Posse Comitatus Act that enforce them — is not a matter of opinion. It is the first step in crafting laws and reforms that solve problems without triggering the kind of backlash that erases them entirely.
Primary Legal References
- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 – Grants Congress exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia.
- District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, Public Law 93-198 – Establishes limited self-government for D.C. and includes Section 740, which allows the president to assume control of the Metropolitan Police Department during emergencies.
- Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – Reserves police powers to the states.
- Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255 – Authorizes the president to deploy military forces domestically under specific conditions.
- Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 – Limits the use of federal military forces in domestic law enforcement without explicit congressional or constitutional authorization.
