U.S. President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that prosecutors will seek the death penalty in all homicide cases in Washington, D.C., declaring that “if somebody kills somebody in the capital, we’re going to be seeking the death penalty.” Speaking at a Cabinet meeting, Trump described the measure as a “very strong preventative” against violent crime. The move extends federal power over the capital, where the death penalty was abolished locally in 1981, and is expected to provoke significant legal and political challenges.

Federal Authority And Local Law

Under existing law, the death penalty is allowed only for certain crimes under federal statutes, and prosecutors must obtain approval from the attorney general before pursuing it. In Washington, most murders fall under local jurisdiction, which does not permit capital punishment. Trump’s order effectively directs the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington to prosecute homicide cases federally where possible, bypassing the District’s laws. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who lifted a Biden-era moratorium on executions earlier this year, will oversee the new cases.

Crime Emergency And Security Crackdown

The announcement comes amid Trump’s broader crackdown on crime in the capital. Earlier this month, he declared a public safety emergency, deployed more than 2,200 National Guard troops, and increased the presence of federal law enforcement, including ICE and Homeland Security officers. While Trump has argued violent crime in Washington is “unacceptable,” city officials have pointed to data showing crime has declined since its 2023 spike.

Political Reactions And Precedents

Washington residents, who overwhelmingly oppose capital punishment, previously rejected it in a 1992 referendum. The city last saw federal prosecutors seek the death penalty in 2003, when two notorious killers were tried; both were sentenced to life after juries deadlocked on execution. Trump’s directive is likely to reignite debates over D.C.’s home rule and the balance of power between local governance and federal oversight. Critics argue the policy is unconstitutional overreach, while supporters say it underscores Trump’s image as a law-and-order president.