Sen. Van Hollen Calls Armed National Guard in DC 'Troubling'

Senator Van Hollen Criticizes Trump's Deployment of National Guard to Washington, D.C.

Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, has expressed strong concerns about President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard to Washington, D.C., citing it as an "abuse of power." Van Hollen emphasized that the move is based on what he calls a "manufactured emergency," particularly in light of declining crime rates and the city’s efforts to address homelessness.

During an interview with "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz, Van Hollen highlighted that violent crime in Washington, D.C. is at a 30-year low and continues to decrease. He argued that this situation is being exploited by Trump to assert control over the city, suggesting that the president is acting like a "dictator."

Raddatz questioned whether there was any actual emergency justifying the deployment, noting that Mayor Muriel Bowser had acknowledged the legal authority for such actions. Van Hollen responded that the real issue lies in the claim of an emergency, which he believes is not accurate. He pointed out that the National Guard is not intended to engage in local law enforcement activities, as outlined by the Posse Comitatus Act.

Van Hollen also raised concerns about the potential arming of the National Guard, stating that this would be troubling given their role in supporting local law enforcement. He emphasized that federal resources should be focused on addressing national threats rather than being diverted to handle local issues like homelessness.

Despite criticism from Democrats and protests from some residents, the White House has defended its decision to bring in the National Guard and increase federal law enforcement presence in the city. The administration argues that these measures are necessary and legally justified.

Perspectives on the Police Chief's Comments

In the same interview, Raddatz brought up comments from D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith, who suggested that the additional federal police could have a positive impact on reducing crime. Van Hollen acknowledged the police chief's position but argued that the best solution would be for Congress to provide the $1 billion in funding needed to hire more local officers.

He also criticized the use of federal resources, such as the FBI and DEA, for tasks that do not align with their primary missions. Van Hollen noted that taxpayers may question why these agencies are being used to address homelessness instead of focusing on national security threats.

Congressional Response to Extended Deployment

When asked about the implications of Trump's plan to maintain control of D.C. police beyond the 30-day limit, Van Hollen stated that this would be a violation of existing statutes. He mentioned that a federal judge had previously ruled against Trump's attempt to replace the police chief, indicating that the president's extended control would likely face legal challenges.

Van Hollen emphasized that Congress would need to pass legislation to extend the deployment, but he doubts that such a measure would gain approval. He stressed the importance of upholding legal boundaries and ensuring that executive actions do not overstep their authority.

Reactions to the Trump-Putin Summit

Van Hollen also commented on the recent Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, describing it as a setback for U.S. interests in Ukraine. He criticized Trump for being "played" by Putin, noting that no significant outcomes were achieved, including a lack of a ceasefire or a meeting between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Van Hollen called for bipartisan legislation in the Senate to impose sanctions on Russia and Vladimir Putin, highlighting that over 60 senators have already supported such efforts. He emphasized the importance of having clear objectives in diplomatic engagements and warned that Trump's approach may have weakened the U.S. position on international issues.