Federal Takeover in D.C. Yields Crime Drop—and Surge in Immigration Arrests

During the first full week Washington, D.C. fell under federal control, with the White House taking over the city’s police force and deploying federal agents and National Guard troops, crime mostly fell—but immigration arrests exploded, data shows.

Starting the week of August 12, when the federal takeover was in effect, property crimes dipped about 19 percent compared to the week before, while violent crime fell roughly 17 percent. Some kinds of property offense saw especially steep improvements: robberies and car break‑ins dropped by more than 40 percent. Other categories showed mixed results—robberies and burglaries, for example, bucked the trend. Burglaries rose about 6 percent, and incidents involving assaults with a weapon climbed nearly 14 percent. And although two homicides were recorded in that time frame, there have been no new murders since August 13.

Federal law enforcement, including unmarked authorities, quickly embedded themselves within the Metropolitan Police Department to aid with arrests, search warrants, and patrols. They worked alongside local officers—even riding in vehicles only occasionally marked by police lights—to help enforce warrants, execute searches, and support daily policing operations.

But while many residents saw lower overall crime, a sharp and controversial increase in immigration arrests drew widespread attention. Between the start of the federal deployment and August 7, approximately 300 individuals were arrested for being in the city without legal immigration status—a number more than ten times higher than what had been typical in past weeks. ICE agents, in some cases, accompanied local police during traffic stops and other encounters, which is believed to have led to more detentions based purely on immigration status.

In contrast, earlier in the year, ICE arrests in D.C. averaged only about a dozen per week. That stark change has become a central part of the debate.

Supporters of the federal intervention praise the drop in crime, saying it demonstrates that putting more boots on the ground, especially with federal support, can have immediate public safety benefits. In public statements, White House officials framed those improvements not as small gains, but as meaningful—life‑changing—for people who had felt unsafe, robbed, or vulnerable to violence.

Critics, however, see the shift in priorities—particularly the focus on immigration enforcement—as troubling. Local D.C. government leaders have raised concerns that the federal takeover is targeting undocumented immigrants disproportionately. They argue the operation may be less about neutral law enforcement and more about enforcing strict immigration policy in a city with sanctuary protections.

The city’s mayor and attorney general have both weighed in. They cite legal concerns over orders that appear to direct local police to assist in federal immigration enforcement in ways that conflict with D.C.’s local rules. Legal filings have been made challenging some of the new orders, especially those seen as undermining longstanding sanctuary policies.

On the ground, some residents report seeing increased visibility of ICE agents, unmarked police vehicles, and more frequent stops tied to immigration status—things that had not been common prior to the takeover. Meanwhile, police checkpoints and road stops have increased, especially near exits from the city, and agents are reportedly watching local law enforcement radio channels in some operations.

Those denouncing the patrol changes say the arrangements make people feel watched, especially among immigrant communities. They warn that such tactics, while possibly reducing certain forms of crime quickly, may have longer‑term risks: eroding trust between communities and the police, chilling cooperation with law enforcement, and creating fear among individuals who might otherwise call for help.

Despite the increase in arrests, it is not fully clear how many of those taken into custody were charged with violent or serious crimes versus immigration violations or other nonviolent offenses. The distinction matters to many locals who believe that law enforcement should prioritize dangerous offenders, rather than focusing heavily on people whose only wrongdoing may be their immigration status.

As the federal presence in D.C. continues, many are watching to see how the enforcement actions will unfold. Will crime continue dropping? Will the policy of rounding up immigrants be tempered or challenged in court? Will community members regain trust in law enforcement?

What is already evident is that Washington has entered a new phase—that of heightened scrutiny under federal oversight, where public safety, legal boundaries, and immigration policy all intersect sharply. And for many, the changes—some visible, others less so—are likely to resonate long after the initial week’s headlines fade.