Trump Warns His Fascist D.C. Takeover Can Still Get Worse

Donald Trump’s vision of the nation’s capital does not appear to be attuned to reality.

Nearly two hours after midnight, the president claimed that the federalization of Washington’s law enforcement had brought peace to the city, apparently ignoring the citywide protests rejecting the White House occupation. But Trump’s self-praise came part and parcel with an ominous threat: that a “complete and federal takeover” of Washington was still a possibility.

“Washington, D.C. is SAFE AGAIN!” Trump announced on Truth Social. “The crowds are coming back, the spirit is high, and our D.C. National Guard and Police are doing a fantastic job.”

In the first week of the operation, Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that the administration had made nearly 400 arrests across the capital. At least 160 of those arrests were undocumented immigrants, reported ABC News.

“They are out in force, and are NOT PLAYING GAMES!!!” Trump continued. “As bad as it sounds to say, there were no murders this week for the first time in memory. Mayor Muriel Bowser must immediately stop giving false and highly inaccurate crime figures, or bad things will happen, including a complete and total Federal takeover of the City! Washington D.C. will soon be great again!!!”

Trump deployed 800 National Guard members to Washington and federalized the capital’s police department last week to combat what he described as a crime-riddled hellscape. To justify the government infringement, the president pointed to rising crime rates, immigrant populations, and homelessness—though the figures he used were from 2023, before violent crime plummeted across the country.

More recent numbers from the Metropolitan Police Department told a remarkably different story: Crime in the nation’s capital was actually down 35 percent in 2024 compared to the year prior. But the administration is apparently not satisfied with the narrative of that data. On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced a criminal investigation into the Washington police department to determine whether the law enforcement bureau had manipulated data to make crime in the city seem lower than officers have claimed.

A federal judge ruled Thursday night that the government could no longer send people to Alligator Alcatraz and that the ramshackle detention facility must be dismantled, Politico reported.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams gave the government 60 days to remove the facility’s fencing, lighting, and generators—rendering the facility unusable and forcing it to clear out its detainee population.

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit from Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Miccosukee Tribe alleging that construction on the new facility was greenlit without providing time for public notice and comment, or conducting proper environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and state and local land-use laws. The facility was built on a defunct Miami-Dade airstrip adjacent to the Big Cypress National Preserve and several tribal villages.

“Every Florida governor, every Florida senator, and countless local and national political figures, including presidents, have publicly pledged their unequivocal support for the restoration, conservation and protection of the Everglades,” Williams wrote. “This order does nothing more than uphold the basic requirements of legislation designed to fulfill those promises.”

Earlier this month, Williams had ordered Florida to halt construction at the Trump administration’s premier wetland-themed concentration camp, where both detainees and former employees have alleged horrific living conditions.

The judge also weighed a long-standing question about the hastily constructed facility: Who exactly runs it? Williams rejected the federal and state government’s claim that Alligator Alcatraz was run by the state of Florida and was therefore not subject to NEPA’s requirements.

“That the deputized officers’ regular salaries are paid, required uniforms are bought, and standard work hours are controlled by their state agency supervisors is not germane because their status there as deputized officers and their activities at the camp are controlled by ICE,” she wrote.

The purposeful ambiguity about whether the facility is managed by ICE has resulted in an erosion of detainee rights, as immigration attorneys watch their clients disappear from the ICE detainee tracker and have no idea how to contact them once they’re inside the camp.

Elon Musk will face a lawsuit accusing him of defrauding voters with his shady, pre-2024 election lottery—in which the billionaire dangled a chance for a million-dollar payday over voters who signed a pro-Constitution petition by his America PAC.

“We are going to be awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election,” Musk told a Pennsylvania crowd in October. But amid a failed attempt by Philadelphia’s district attorney to halt the giveaway, America PAC revealed that the $1 million recipients were not chosen by chance but handpicked, with their personal stories being a factor in the selection process.

This was news to Jacqueline McAferty of Arizona, who had signed the petition and, on Election Day, proposed a class action, claiming that Musk and America PAC had defrauded voters. Musk, McAferty said, induced voters with false statements to sign the petition and submit “personal, private information” in the process.

Musk in January sought to get the case dismissed, insisting that people who signed up for the chance to win $1 million weren’t harmed by sharing their personal information and were told—despite his apparent statements to the contrary—that America PAC staffers would review their cases rather than leave their selection up to chance.

But on Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas ordered Musk to face the lawsuit.

“It is plausible that plaintiff justifiably relied on those statements to believe that defendants were objectively offering her the chance to enter a random lottery—even if that is not what they subjectively intended to do,” wrote U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, per Reuters.

Pitman also suggested that a political data expert could testify and help determine the value of the information that McAferty and other signatories provided to Musk.

Musk’s presence in the political sphere has shrunk in recent months. He funneled millions into the Trump campaign and led the president’s efforts to gut the federal government before the two had a very public falling out over the administration’s sweeping tax and spending plan.

But the world’s richest man remains interested in politics: When The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Musk had given up on his plans to start a political party, which he first cooked up during his feud with Trump, Musk suggested that this wasn’t true.

Vice President JD Vance on Thursday baselessly dismissed a recent report that exposed the regressive nature of the administration’s economic agenda.

During a Thursday visit to Georgia, a reporter with Atlanta News First asked the vice president to justify the fact that, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Trump’s spending plan will exacerbate the wealth gap.

According to the report, the so-called One, Big Beautiful Bill Act will cost the poorest Americans an estimated $1,200 per year from 2026 to 2034, while furnishing the richest with an extra $13,600.

Vance’s reply?

Sometimes, he said, the CBO’s reports are “absolutely atrocious, and I think this is a good example of a very atrocious report.”

To defend the claim, he pointed to the bill’s temporary no-tax-on-tips and no-tax-on-overtime provisions (which were, according to the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, “designed in ways that limit their benefits for less affluent taxpayers”).

Most importantly, Vance said, Trump’s policies will keep jobs in the United States. But rather than explain how, he provided a quite circular argument: “That is the very best thing for the people at the bottom of the income ladder, and that’s why we have the economic policies that we do.”

The vice president went on to tout the president’s mass deportation campaign.

Last month, when Vance was rallying for the bill’s passage, he described its impact on the federal budget (as measured by the CBO) and its historic cuts to the social safety net (“the minutiae of the Medicaid policy,” as he put it) as “immaterial,” in light of the billions it puts toward Trump’s draconian immigration agenda.

Far-right Freedom Caucus member Chip Roy—whom President Donald Trump once described as “weak and ineffective”—is now running for Texas Attorney General.

Roy adds his name to a large group of conservatives looking to replace current Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is now running for Senate. Roy and Paxton were close, with Roy even working as assistant attorney general for Paxton in 2014.

That all changed when Roy called on Paxton to resign in 2020 on allegations of bribery and abuse of office.

Roy has also been a constant agitator within the GOP, as he most recently opposed Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” on fiscal grounds. But Roy chose to leave the past conflict out of his campaign announcement ad.

“Today, we draw a line in the sand. Texans’ next attorney general must have a proven record of fighting to preserve, protect, and defend our legacy—an attorney general unafraid to fight, unafraid to win,” Roy said. “That’s why I fought to secure our border and help President Trump deliver results.”

Roy will be running against state Senators Mayes Middleton and Joan Huffman, and former Paxton aide Aaron Reitz.

California’s Supreme Court has struck down the state GOP’s attempt to delay Governor Gavin Newsom’s redistricting plan, clearing the runway for the measure to reach the November referendum vote. 

The GOP lawmakers who filed the challenge argued that Newsom had moved forward too quickly, and violated the state’s independent redistricting commission. 

On Wednesday, the justices disagreed.

Newsom’s plan, which is contingent upon Texas passing its initial redistricting effort, has some California Republicans incensed.

“We have a governor, we have political insiders, we have legislators who are breaking California’s Constitution by drawing congressional maps behind closed doors, with no transparency,” California state Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares told CNN’s Brianna Keilar on Wednesday. 

“The new maps that Democrats in your state want to pass … they include a trigger, that they would only go into effect if Texas’s redistricted maps go into effect.… Do you hold Texas Republicans at all responsible for what you’re facing in your state?” Keilar asked. 

“Well, that actually—Governor Newsom said that this would only happen if Texas redrew their maps, however that’s not what the bill language they presented said,” Vallardares said. “It says if any state redraws their maps, that this would go into an effect.” 

“OK. But that’s the effect of this. There is a trigger. This isn’t happening in a vacuum. There’s a contingency. And in this case, it is Texas. So let’s just be clear. If it says other states, well, it’s Texas,” Keilar said. “So do you have any criticism from members of your own party in Texas?” 

Vallardares avoided the question, instead insisting that what Newsom was doing was wholly illegal.

“If you can’t criticize Republicans in Texas for their approach, which is so different from the one that you’re advocating for in California, how should voters see California Republicans … opposed to a move like this only when it doesn’t favor them?” the CNN reporter asked.

“Listen, I was elected, and the 120 legislators that were elected this past November in California, to uphold the California Constitution. This isn’t a Republican issue. This isn’t a Democrat issue. This is an issue of political elitists in California silencing and taking the power away from California voters,” Valladares said, once again avoiding Keilar’s question. 

California’s redistricting referendum is set for November 4.  

A federal judge ruled Thursday that Alina Habba has been illegally serving as U.S. attorney for New Jersey and blocked her from prosecuting two criminal defendants who’d challenged her appointment.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” wrote U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann in a 77-page court filing. Brann wrote that Habba has been acting unlawfully as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey since July 1.

Last month, New Jersey federal judges decided to fire Habba, refusing to vote to extend her 120-day appointment as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, but the Trump administration found a loophole to keep its thoughtless foot soldier in place without Senate confirmation. After it fired the first assistant U.S. attorney who was approved to replace her, and then appointed Habba to that position, Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer found herself as acting U.S. attorney once again.

Brann’s decision was a response to a motion from defendants Julien Giraud Jr., Julien Giraud III, and Ceasar Humberto Pina.

The Girauds were indicted on three counts, including drug and firearm charges, in November, and Pina was indicted in a separate case in July on six counts, including charges for wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering. The Girauds and Pina had submitted motions arguing that Habba’s appointment was illegal.

The judge granted the Girauds’ motion to disqualify Habba from participating in their prosecution, and Pina won his plea, in part. Brann wrote that because Habba had signed Pina’s indictment on July 7, the indictment was “presumptively defective”—though the indictment would not be dismissed.

“The Court will stay this decision and its effects pending the resolution of any appellate Proceedings,” Brann concluded, meaning that Habba would stay in her position while the government appealed the decision. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal the ruling in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Washington is just the beginning of the Trump administration’s broader plan to occupy American cities.

Vice President JD Vance casually revealed Thursday that the White House “hopes” that cities across the country will follow the capital’s lead—that is to say, hand over the reins of their local law enforcement and welcome the National Guard into their city limits.

“Do you see the administration putting soldiers in the city of Atlanta?” asked a reporter from WABE radio in Atlanta.

“Well look, what we’ve done is we have focused on Washington, D.C., because it’s a federal city under our jurisdiction,” Vance said. “But we certainly hope that whether it’s Atlanta or anywhere else, people are going to look around and say, ‘We don’t have to live like this.’”

The vice president then framed the nation’s capital as a city overrun by violent crime, projecting an image of America in which authorities would effectively be allowed to snatch “bad guys” off the streets without protest. In actuality, many of the undocumented targets of the Trump administration have not been criminals, and have been forced into deportation proceedings without systemic consideration of their constitutional rights.

On Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the administration had made nearly 400 arrests in Washington since the beginning of the operation. At least 160 of those arrests were undocumented immigrants, reported ABC News.

“We hope the people see what we’re doing in Washington, D.C., and follow our example all across the country,” Vance added.

The Ohio-born politico then boasted about Washington’s supposedly new low crime rate, disregarding the fact that violent crime in the nation’s capital has been on a downward trend since 2024. Confusingly, FBI Director Kash Patel used the accurate data to pat the Trump administration on the back during a press conference last week, claiming that the “plummeting” homicide numbers were thanks to the president’s policies.

Trump deployed 800 National Guard members to Washington and federalized the capital’s police department last week to combat what he described as a crime-riddled hellscape. To justify the government infringement, the president pointed to rising crime rates, immigrant populations, and homelessness—though the figures he used were from 2023, before violent crime plummeted across the country.

Donald Trump’s authoritarian takeover is looking more and more like a senseless stunt made for television.

While speaking to conservative radio host Todd Starnes Thursday, Trump claimed that he planned to do a ride-along with law enforcement in Washington, D.C., as they carried out his crackdown on crime in the nation’s capital.

“I’m going to be going out tonight, I think, with the police and with the military, of course. So we’re going to do a job,” Trump said. “The National Guard is great. They’ve done a fantastic job.”

The White House said Thursday that Trump was expected to travel by motorcade to the district’s neighborhoods, where he would meet with police officers and National Guard troops play-acting at the Herculean task of bringing crime down in a city where it’s already dropping.

Last week, Trump invoked Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 to federalize the Metropolitan Police Department, and deployed scores of federal forces and National Guardsmen to the city, giving them license to do “whatever the hell they want.” Six Republican-led states are sending even more troops—even though their states’ crime rates aren’t much better.

So far, it seems the results of Trump’s crackdown have been almost laughable—unless you count Fox News Bret Baier being pulled over by police as a success.

And the Trump administration’s attempts to sell its fascist takeover have been similarly lame. Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller were practically booed out of Washington’s Union Station Wednesday while visiting with National Guardsmen who were stationed there. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on shiny new Trump-ified vehicles that they showcased in a weird recruitment video. And the White House posted a dramatic video documenting the arrest of a man who threw a sandwich at a federal officer. This is what our tax dollars are going toward now—making good TV.

While Trump’s takeover may be massive, there is speculation from law enforcement and residents alike that it won’t make anyone safer. But in Trump’s world, it only matters how something looks, not how it actually is. This ride-along, if it does happen, would surely be no exception.

This story has been updated.

Donald Trump declared “total victory” over New York Attorney General Letitia James Thursday after a state appeals court tossed his bank fraud disgorgement.

In several lengthy Truth Social posts, the president incorrectly claimed that the court had voted “5 to 0” in his favor (it did not) and that “every single dollar was thrown out” (which is also untrue).

Trump also inanely suggested that the civil trial was yet another example of election interference, and that the attorney general’s case was the brainchild of former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris.

“It was a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen before,” the president wrote in a lengthy Truth Social post. “This was a Case of Election Interference by the City and State trying to show, illegally, that I did things that were wrong when, in fact, everything I did was absolutely CORRECT and, even, PERFECT.”

The president also posted a video of a still image of himself in court, set to DJ Khaled’s song “All I Do Is Win.”

What actually happened in the New York appeals court was, nonetheless, a major coup for Trump. Three judges on a five-judge panel voted to throw out Trump’s $500 million disgorgement Thursday, claiming the resulting penalty for the Trump Organization’s bank fraud case was an “excessive fine.”

At least two judges on the court agreed with the original ruling that found Trump and his codefendants liable for fraud, noting that the injunctive relief ordered by the presiding judge was “well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture.” However, the final page of the order stated that “three out of the five members of this panel clearly believe that the judgment should be vacated,” on the basis that the “attorney general has not yet proven her case.”

In her own statement, James underscored that the court had still affirmed that “Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud,” and that her office would appeal the ruling.

“The court upheld the injunctive relief we won, limiting Donald Trump and the Trump Organization officers’ ability to do business in New York,” she said. “It should not be lost to history: Yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit.”