By Fresh Facts Investigations Desk
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. capital is once again the stage for a fierce battle over local autonomy, immigration policy, and the reach of federal power. On Thursday night, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a sweeping order dismantling Washington’s sanctuary city protections and placing its police force under direct federal command — a move that has already ignited a constitutional standoff.
Under Bondi’s directive, Terry Cole, the hard-charging chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), has been installed as D.C.’s “emergency police commissioner.” Effective immediately, Cole wields full operational authority over the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) as part of a federal takeover ordered earlier this week by President Donald Trump, who declared a “crime emergency” in the city.
“D.C. will not remain a sanctuary city actively shielding criminal aliens,” Bondi declared during an interview on Fox News. “Will not happen.”
From Home Rule to Federal Rule
D.C.’s current predicament strikes at the heart of its long-running fight for home rule — the principle that the District should manage its own affairs without direct federal interference. Since 1973, when Congress granted D.C. limited self-governing powers, mayors and councils have clashed periodically with federal authorities over everything from budget control to policing.
Immigration enforcement has been among the most contentious issues. Sanctuary city laws, adopted by D.C. over the last two decades, limit local cooperation with federal immigration agencies, particularly in cases where individuals are not charged with other crimes.
Bondi’s order not only revokes recent MPD guidance protecting undocumented immigrants but also requires police leaders to seek Cole’s approval before issuing any future directives. The targeted policies include:
- A ban on arresting individuals solely on federal immigration warrants.
- Restrictions on using police databases to search for immigration status.
- A prohibition on questioning individuals solely to determine immigration status for civil enforcement purposes.
The Trigger: Smith’s Limited Cooperation Order
Ironically, Thursday’s confrontation began when Police Chief Pamela Smith signed an executive order expanding MPD’s ability to share certain information with federal immigration officials and assist in transporting detainees. The order still preserved core sanctuary protections, which Justice Department insiders say Bondi saw as a deliberate attempt to defy the administration’s push for “full cooperation” with ICE and other immigration agencies.
Bondi’s response was swift and uncompromising — her order not only rescinded Smith’s policy but positioned federal command as the ultimate arbiter of police conduct in the city.
Local Leaders Cry Foul
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser immediately took to social media to reject Bondi’s move:
“There is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”
She also circulated a letter from D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb to Chief Smith, calling the directive “unlawful” and advising MPD that it was not legally bound to follow it.
City Council member Christina Henderson echoed that sentiment, writing:
“Respectfully, the Attorney General does not have the authority to revoke laws.”
A Broader Political Calculus
To immigration advocates, Bondi’s move represents the weaponization of federal authority to dismantle local protections for vulnerable communities. To Trump administration supporters, it is a necessary step to restore “law and order” in a city they say has been too soft on crime.
For constitutional scholars, the confrontation raises a more fundamental question: How far can the federal government go in asserting control over the District — a jurisdiction without statehood and with limited self-governing rights — when its laws conflict with presidential priorities?
With lawsuits and public protests almost certain, the standoff over D.C.’s sanctuary policies could become a defining legal and political battle in the months ahead, testing the limits of home rule and setting the tone for federal–local relations nationwide.
