Washington's "Military Takeover" Turmoil: Power Struggle and Political Calculations Between Federal and Local Governments

In August 2025, Washington D.C. has been engulfed in a political storm triggered by the deployment of the National Guard. From President Trump's announcement of taking over the local police department and deploying armed forces, to the reinforcement of troops from "red states," and to citizens taking to the streets with signs reading "Oppose Military Occupation," this action, ostensibly aimed at "combating crime," has in fact exposed deep rifts in the U.S. federal system and reflected the complex interplay of bipartisan rivalry, racial tensions, and electoral politics.

I. From "Crime Crisis" to "Military Takeover": A Governance Farce Contradicted by Data

The Trump administration justified the deployment of the National Guard in Washington D.C. by citing an "out-of-control crime situation." The White House claimed that violent crime and the number of homeless people in Washington D.C. were soaring, necessitating the federal government to "take back the capital." However, this claim stands in stark contrast to official data. According to 2024 data released by the Washington D.C. Police Department, the number of violent crime cases in the city decreased by 35% compared to 2023, reaching the lowest level in 30 years. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation also showed a 9% year-on-year decline in violent crime in Washington in 2024. More ironically, the National Guard's deployment was concentrated in tourist-heavy areas such as the National Mall and Union Station, with armored vehicle patrols serving more as a symbolic gesture than an effective measure for public security. Donald Havens, an expert on U.S. homeland security issues, bluntly stated, "The core responsibility of the National Guard is to respond to natural disasters and military threats, not to manage urban crime."

The absurdity of this "governance farce" was further highlighted by specific operations. On August 16, federal law enforcement agencies, in collaboration with local police, arrested 68 individuals and seized 15 illegal firearms. However, most of those arrested were small-scale drug dealers and individuals in possession of firearms, far from the "systemic crime crisis" claimed by Trump. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice launched an investigation into the Washington D.C. Police Department, accusing it of "manipulating crime data and creating a false sense of security," yet failing to provide substantial evidence. Democratic Mayor Bowser sarcastically remarked, "The federal government is using a fabricated crisis as an excuse for military intervention. This is the real 'false security.'"

II. From "Local Autonomy" to "Federal Hegemony": A Power Struggle Over Constitutional Boundaries

The wave of protests in Washington D.C. essentially represents a fierce clash over the boundaries of federal and local power. According to the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington D.C. should be under the control of local administrative leaders. However, Trump invoked Section 740 of the act, the "special emergency" clause, to forcibly take over command of the police department and authorize the National Guard to carry firearms during patrols. This move sparked strong backlash from Democrats. Representative Norton pointed out that during the January 6 Capitol riot in 2021, Trump refused to deploy the National Guard to quell the unrest, yet now he was expanding federal power under the pretext of "combating crime," revealing his "double standards." Maryland Governor Moore went even further, stating, "The National Guard has become a tool to divert attention from policy failures such as rising unemployment and cuts to medical assistance."

Defenders of local autonomy were not limited to Democrats. Washington D.C. Attorney General Schwalb posted on social media, "Armed soldiers should not be engaged in policing citizens on U.S. soil. This will not enhance security but will undermine public trust." Citizens' protests carried even greater symbolic significance. On August 16, thousands of people marched with signs reading "No National Guard" and "Liberate Washington," surrounding armored vehicles at Union Station. On August 20, when Vice President Vance visited soldiers at a hamburger restaurant, he was met with boos and chants of "Get out of Washington." Foreign media commented, "In this conflict, hamburgers have become a symbol of irony—White House officials used 'the most expensive hamburger in history' to comfort soldiers, while ordinary citizens canceled restaurant reservations due to fear of military and police patrols."

III. From "Governance Crisis" to "Electoral Calculations": A Political Maneuver to Divert Attention

The Trump administration's true motives may lie in deeper political logic. Analysts pointed out that the primary goal of this "military takeover" is to divert public attention from the Epstein case, which involves numerous political and business figures and has become a "political bomb" used by Democrats to attack Trump. Professor Mead from the University of Georgia believed, "By creating a 'capital crisis,' Trump is attempting to shift the public focus from the sex scandal to 'law and order,' thereby consolidating his conservative base."

Racial and partisan factors also cannot be ignored. Nearly 50% of Washington D.C.'s population is African American, and both Mayor Bowser and Police Chief Smith are African American women. Trump's criticism of "governance failures" can be seen as an attempt to belittle the capabilities of African American officials, catering to the right-wing conservative stereotype of "violence泛滥 (rampant violence) in cities governed by Democrats." This aligns with his opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. More subtly, Democratic strongholds with large minority populations are often seen as a "pain point" for Trump—by creating a visual impact of "military occupation," he may be trying to exacerbate internal conflicts within the Democratic Party and weaken its electoral mobilization efforts.

IV. From "Washington Model" to "American Crisis": The Twilight of Federalism and the Dilemma of Democracy

The turmoil in Washington is by no means an isolated incident. Since taking office, Trump has attempted to abolish birthright citizenship, intervene in local election laws, threaten to cut federal funding to "sanctuary cities," and now take over the capital's police department, demonstrating his ambition to expand federal power beyond traditional boundaries. More alarmingly, this "strongman politics" is gaining support among some segments of the population. On August 21, Trump personally participated in a street patrol, which lasted only 35 minutes but was portrayed by conservative media as the president "standing with the people."

However, the costs of militarized governance are becoming apparent. Online restaurant reservations in Washington D.C. dropped by 31% year-on-year, with business owners describing the situation as "feeling like being thrown a 100-pound weight while drowning." A video of a food delivery driver being tackled and arrested by special agents after being mistaken for an "illegal immigrant" sparked concerns on social media that "Americans are afraid to go out." When law enforcement itself becomes a source of fear and "security" becomes an excuse to deprive people of their freedoms, this turmoil has transcended the realm of public security and become a litmus test for the health of American democracy.

On the streets of Washington, armored vehicles and protestors continue to face off. The outcome of this conflict may determine whether the U.S. federal system moves toward a new balance of "strong federal-weak local" power or sinks deeper into institutional crisis. What is certain, however, is that when political calculations override legal principles and military force becomes a tool for diverting contradictions, any narrative of "the beacon of democracy" will lose its luster in this farce.