It’s the first day of Donald Trump’s unprecedented takeover of law enforcement in Washington, D.C., which he claims is necessary to regain control over crime but can best be described as an “invented emergency.” Below are the latest updates on what’s happening in the capital, as well as the ongoing reaction.

Vox’s Ian Millhiser explains that it will be up the courts to stop Trump if he tries to declare another emergency:

The Home Rule Act does contain one very significant limit on presidential power: the 30-day limit. And the statute is quite clear that this limit should not be evaded. Again, it states that “no” services made available to the president “shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.” (The law also permits Congress to extend this 30-day limit by adjourning “sine die,” meaning that Congress adjourns without formally setting a date for its return, something it typically only does for a brief period every year.)

So what happens if, a month from now, Trump declares a new emergency and tries to seize control of DC’s police for another 30 days? If the courts conclude that he can do that, they would make a mockery of the Home Rule Act’s text. Presidents should not be allowed to wave away an explicit statutory limit on their authority by photocopying an old executive order and changing the dates.

That said, the Supreme Court is dominated by Republicans who recently held that Trump may use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes. So, while the Home Rule Act is very clear about the 30-day limit on Trump’s power, there is no guarantee that this Supreme Court will rule that the law applies to him.

Read the rest of Ian’s analysis here.

Radley Balko writes that in this instance, it’s justified:

National security experts worry that Trump’s dismantling of the CIA and FBI and politicization of the NSA could leave the country vulnerable to a September 11-style attack. Whatever you make of that fear, such an attack wouldn’t be a vulnerability for this administration. It would be an opportunity. Nothing conditions the public to accept restrictions on civil liberties and vast expansions of government power like fear. It seems safe to say that this administration will exploit any genuine crisis as shamelessly as they’ve exploited the crises they’ve manufactured.

For 15 years now, I’ve given a speech about police militarization based on my first book. I’ve always ended the speech with a reality check on the term “police state.” I’ve tried to emphasize that despite the unsettling trends I just spoke about, we do not live in a police state. Instead, it’s important to speak out about these problems as they happen, because by the time you’re actually in a police state, speaking out is no longer an option.

We are now past the point of crisis. Trump has long dreamed of presiding over a police state. He has openly admired and been reluctant to criticize foreign leaders who helm one. He has now appointed people who have expressed their willingness to help him achieve one to the very positions with the power to make one happen. And both he and his highest-ranking advisers have both openly spoken about and written out their plans to implement one.

It’s time to believe them.

“The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Monday. At his press conference later, he added that “There are many places that they can go, and we’re going to help them as much as you can help. But they’ll not be allowed to turn our capital into a wasteland for the world to see.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavvit said Tuesday that the federalized D.C. police and federal agencies will dismantle all homeless encampments in the city under preexisting laws (which she said had not been enforced by the city prior to the takeover).

“Homeless individuals will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services, and if they refuse they will susceptible to fines or jail time,” Leavitt told reporters. “We want to make D.C. safe and beautiful, and that involves removing mentally disturbed individuals and homeless encampments, as well.”

Asked if and how they intended to move D.C.’s homeless “far” away, Leavitt insisted that was still the plan, then indicated there wasn’t yet an actual plan: “We’re exploring how we could do that.” In the meantime, it sounds like........

© Daily Intelligencer