WASHINGTON — Our Revolution sharply criticized President Trump’s “dangerous and authoritarian” decision to federalize the D.C. police and deploy National Guard troops, calling it a blatant power grab disguised as law and order. The political action group launched a petition urging Congress to “block his latest power grab,” while the White House defended the move as necessary to protect public safety and federal operations.
Our Revolution, which supports justice and democracy in Washington, D.C., and across the nation, labeled the crisis in D.C. “manufactured,” suggesting it was intended to divert attention from the Epstein scandal and signal authoritarianism merging with oligarchy.
According to the organization, the federal intervention marks the latest in escalating crackdowns affecting academia, law firms, government offices, independent civic centers and more. Executive Director Joseph Geevarghese said, “This is not law and order — it’s tyranny… Trump is starting to target American cities led by Democrats, first deploying troops in L.A., now federalizing local police in D.C.”
Geevarghese added, “This is a clear escalation with the threat of military force in Trump’s authoritarian push to silence dissent, intimidate communities, and tighten his grip on power. In the meantime, he’s using this power grab as a diversion from the Epstein scandal.” He called on Congress to act, warning, “Time and again, strongmen have manufactured crises to tighten their grip on local police — the first step toward a nationwide power grab.”
The group described Trump’s action as “an authoritarian tactic designed to silence protest and dissent,” and warned the move exemplifies a standard playbook to crush opposition and consolidate power.
It stressed that protecting the “line between civilian and military authority” is vital in a functioning democracy and demanded that “Congress must act.” Officials, candidates, and organizations that defend democracy are urged to “speak out and act decisively against this dangerous escalation.”
The group also mobilized its 8 million-plus members to circulate the petition urging lawmakers to block the takeover and troop deployment.
In response to a purported crime threat, the Trump administration issued a memorandum directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to mobilize the D.C. National Guard under the president’s authority to restore law and order in the capital, citing recent violent incidents—including the murders of two embassy staffers in May, the fatal shooting of a Congressional intern in June, and a physical attack on an administration staffer—as evidence of deteriorating security.
Simultaneously, Trump signed an executive order under Section 740 of the Home Rule Act declaring a crime emergency. The order permits the president to assume control over the Metropolitan Police Department, and delegates oversight to the Attorney General, who must report regularly on the emergency and recommend further measures or termination.
The administration’s fact sheet argues that D.C. suffers from high rates of robbery, homicide and vehicle theft—claiming its homicide rate in 2024 exceeded 27 per 100,000 residents, and vehicle theft was more than three times the national average at 842.4 per 100,000 residents. The factsheet warns that rising violence threatens federal workers, impairs recruitment, undermines public confidence, and jeopardizes the effective operation of the federal government in the nation’s capital.
Defense Secretary Hegseth clarified that National Guard troops would serve only as “force multipliers” under Title 32 authority, not directly enforcing the law, though they may assist in detaining suspects temporarily if necessary.
Legal experts and civil rights advocates, however, point to crime data showing violent crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low—with carjackings dropping significantly, as well as the heightened federal presence facing criticism for legal overreach and potential erosion of local accountability.
The unprecedented invocation of the Home Rule Act—never before used to this extent—has triggered alarm about democratic norms and future federal interventions. Civil rights groups argue the move echoes racially charged law-and-order rhetoric and may be used to suppress protest and dissent
From the article: “Legal experts and civil rights advocates, however, point to crime data showing violent crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low—with carjackings dropping significantly, as well as the heightened federal presence facing criticism for legal overreach and potential erosion of local accountability.”
But the stats are being manipulated:
“Is DC Crime at a 30-Year Low? Mainstream Media Outlets Cite Police Data To Say Yes—Without Noting a Commander Is on Leave for Allegedly Falsifying That Data.”
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/is-dc-crime-at-a-30-year-low-mainstream-media-outlets-cite-police-data-to-say-yes-without-noting-a-commander-is-on-leave-for-allegedly-falsifying-that-data/
“Our Revolution, which supports justice and democracy in Washington, D.C., and across the nation, labeled the crisis in D.C. “manufactured,” suggesting it was intended to divert attention from the Epstein scandal”
What’s being manufactured is the Epstein scandal. If Trump actually was involved don’t you think the Biden administration and Garland would’ve leaked that information with Trump running for President? The democrats would’ve been all over that.
So the homicide rate was higher under Biden.
DC felt dangerous when I visited the place (prior to the last year listed on that chart). The area just beyond the White House itself didn’t seem like it was in a great neighborhood.
It’s also not “just about” getting murdered.
Truth be told, I was surprised at the high percentage of black people working for the federal government, compared to the percentage I’ve seen elsewhere (at least based upon my informal observations). (Needless to say, federal workers are generally not violent criminals – regardless of skin color.)
In any case, I don’t blame Melania for not staying there (and am surprised that Trump himself is willing to do so at all). Again, the White House itself seems to be in a surprisingly-questionable area (at least nearby). Not exactly Jackson Hole – or even Marin, Atherton, Tahoe, or anywhere in the Silicon Valley.
Personally, I would have stayed at Mar-A-Lago, if I was in Trump’s position.
Now, if they’re not federal workers, you might find yourself in a “predicament” in D.C. (outside of the usual tourist spots and/or at night).
Regarding DC, it’s about comparable to putting California’s capitol in Sacramento. The same reason that Newsom and Schwarzenegger high-tailed it out of there (or never moved there in the first place). And Nancy Reagan wasn’t too pleased with the “governor’s mansion”, either.
Not sure why capitols end up in “sh*t-hole” cities, as Trump might describe them (at least in comparison to other options). Perhaps some kind of “consolation prize”?
Yeah, yeah – I know – the Sacramento region is supposedly “desirable” when it comes to housing mandates. But I can assure you that Mark Zuckerberg, and most Bay Area residents view it as a “consolation prize”. (Not to mention the former Oakland A’s, who won’t even dare mention the name while waiting to move.)
I’ll bet you if an honest poll was taken in DC, not one conducted by some woke left wing organization, you would find that a majority of DC residents welcome the federal takeover and influx of the National Guard into their security organizations.