D.C. Needs Local Policing, Not a Federal Takeover
This analysis is in response to breaking news and it will be updated. Please contact pr@rstreet.org to speak with the author.
Quick summary:
- D.C.’s violent crime rates have declined, underscoring the success of empowered, data-driven local policing.
- The Trump administration’s surge, now bolstered by a National Guard activation, is highly visible and transparent, which can strengthen deterrence, but it must be strategic and temporary to avoid undermining local gains and being an unnecessary drain on taxpayer dollars.
- Lethality remains a critical concern requiring specialized strategies that go beyond patrol presence.
- Partnership is essential: federal and local agencies should operate as complements, not competitors, in the city’s public safety framework.
President Trump has formally activated the National Guard in Washington, D.C., and ordered the immediate eviction of homeless individuals. This expands a federal law enforcement surge that already includes hundreds of highly visible federal law enforcement agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Marshals, and other agencies patrolling the city’s hotspots, tourist areas, and business districts.
All of this is occurring despite data showing violent crime has dropped 26 percent and overall crime is down 7 percent in 2025. These levels mark a 30-year low, prompting swift backlash from Mayor Muriel Bowser, who argues the city isn’t in crisis and that his measures threaten local governance and civil liberties. Supporters see this as a show of resolve, echoing congressional efforts to override local crime policies. Critics argue this is unnecessary given the city’s improving safety metrics.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt framed the surge in unequivocal terms: “President Trump has directed an increased presence of federal law enforcement to protect innocent citizens. There will be no safe harbor for violent criminals in D.C.” The President himself, warning that if the city doesn’t “get its act together” he could take over governance entirely, has reignited a long-standing debate over whether Washington should retain control over its own policing and local administration or be placed more directly under federal authority.
Crime Data: Encouraging, But it Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story
Official statistics point to a strong rebound for D.C.: violent crime dropped by 35 percent in 2024 and is down another 26 percent so far in 2025, far outpacing the national trend, which saw a 4.5 percent fall in violent offenses last year. Homicides, robberies, assaults, and sexual abuse cases have all declined, bringing the city’s crime rate to its lowest point in more than three decades. But what if those numbers aren’t telling the full story?
A July 2025 investigative report revealed that a D.C. police commander was suspended amid allegations of deliberately misclassifying crime, meaning the relabeling of violent offenses as non-felony or less severe to make the stats appear more favorable. Further complicating the issue is the fact that only about half of all crimes are actually reported to police. This underreporting of crime is a known issue nationwide, but it is especially consequential in cities like D.C. where the legitimacy of statistical claims influences policy and public trust.
Put together, these concerns don’t discredit recent successes. The MPD has indeed made real progress, but they do counsel caution. If public safety is truly improving, it must be verifiable and transparent.
Why Local Policing Is Leading the Way
MPD officers know the streets, the dynamics, and the residents. They understand which corners turn volatile after dark, which businesses are vulnerable to repeat victimization, and which community leaders can help diffuse tensions before they boil over. This institutional knowledge isn’t just useful; it’s essential to proactive crime prevention. Their daily presence, on foot patrol, in marked cruisers, or engaging at community events, sends a constant signal of order and accountability. That visibility alone deters opportunistic crime and builds the trust needed for residents to share information that helps close cases.
The ability to prevent disputes from escalating–whether that means breaking up a fight before it turns into an assault, mediating neighborhood conflicts, or identifying retaliatory threats after a shooting–is something federal officers, no matter how well-trained, can’t achieve in a few days or weeks on the ground. MPD’s relationships are built over years of consistent contact. Officers know the repeat offenders by name, understand the patterns of emerging crews, and can spot brewing trouble long before it appears on a crime map.
This is why the recent crime drop in D.C. is, in large part, the result of empowered local policing. When supported by leadership and the community, law enforcement agencies have the ability to implement strategies that aren’t just reactive, but preventative. Efforts like focused deterrence, community policing initiatives, and real-time crime centers allow local officers to address crime at its root rather than chasing symptoms after the fact.
That’s not to say federal partnerships have no role – far from it. Targeted joint task forces, intelligence-sharing, and inter-agency collaboration can and do lead to measurable results. When these efforts are designed to supplement, not supplant, local capabilities, they become powerful force multipliers. The key is integration: federal resources should be embedded in local strategies, with MPD setting priorities and retaining operational control.
The Costs and Limits of Federal Surges
Deploying the National Guard and hundreds of federal agents to a single city is expensive and operationally disruptive. It draws resources from other jurisdictions, forces agencies to reshuffle priorities, and risks duplicating work already underway by local police. The Trump administration has addressed one key public concern by requiring all deployed personnel to be clearly identifiable, a shift from past controversial deployments where anonymity eroded public trust. Transparency matters, and visible law enforcement, whether federal or local, can strengthen deterrence.
But repeated or prolonged surges risk becoming a crutch. They can overshadow local leadership, create dependencies, and, if not coordinated well, strain the relationships between police and the communities they serve. The most sustainable public safety strategies are those built from the ground up, rooted in daily engagement and long-term investment.
But There’s a Darker Underlayer: Rising Lethality
Underneath falling crime numbers lies a troubling reality: violent crime in D.C. is far more lethal than before. Recent data show an over 300 percent increase in lethality since 2012. In 2024 alone, Washington had one of the highest lethal-violence rates of major U.S. cities with 57 homicides per 1,000 serious violent crimes. What this means is that residents are far less likely to be victims of violent crime than a decade ago, but if they are, the risk of death is far higher.
This context makes the tragic June drive-by shooting all the more jarring. A twenty-one-year-old legislative intern was senselessly killed in the crossfire of targeted gunfire. And just a few days ago, a nineteen-year-old software engineer and member of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was beaten and carjacked. The mother of the murdered intern has outwardly supported President Trump’s deployment, underscoring a fundamental citizen expectation: public safety demands more than falling crime counts. When the rare violent incident happens and is fatal, there must be consequences, justice, and accountability.
Balancing Federal Visibility with Local Control
The President’s decision delivers on community expectations for visibility and deterrence in moments of heightened concern. His supporters will see it as proof of his willingness to act where others hesitate. But given D.C.’s ongoing crime decline, it is fair to question whether this was the right scale of intervention at the right time.
The most effective path forward is a balance: federal agencies remain ready to deploy when requested and needed, but local police maintain primary control and direction. This ensures that surges are targeted, temporary, and transparent, serving as a boost to existing capacity rather than a replacement for it.
Washington, D.C. has gone from being a cautionary tale to an example of what sustained investment in local policing can accomplish. National Guard deployments and federal surges may grab headlines, but the real work of public safety happens in the daily interactions between local officers and the communities they serve. If the goal is lasting safety, federal visibility should be a tool — not the plan.