(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., on Sunday underlined his stance that President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C., over concerns of high crime and the level of homelessness amounts to an “abuse of power.”

“All of this is a total abuse of power. It’s a manufactured emergency,” Van Hollen said in an interview with “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz. “Obviously D.C. can do more to reduce violent crime, as we can across the country. But as you pointed out, crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low and a downward trajectory. So, this is all an opportunity for Donald Trump to play dictator in Washington, D.C.”

“The way the law is written, it appears he has the legal authority. And Mayor [Muriel] Bowser conceded that. So, what is the abuse of power here?” Raddatz pressed.

“The abuse of power is claiming that this is an emergency. And everybody who is watching what happens knows that this is not an emergency in Washington, D.C.,” Van Hollen argued.

Violent crime levels have decreased compared to years prior, down 26% since 2024, a 30-year low, leaving outstanding questions over why Trump deployed roughly 800 troops around the city.

Over the weekend, several Republican-led states announced additional Guard troops would also deploy to Washington to support the president’s mission.

As some outlets report the National Guard could be armed soon, Van Hollen said, “Well, that’s very troubling, because, as you know, the National Guard, first of all, is not supposed to engage in any local law enforcement activity. We have the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits them from engaging in local law enforcement. And so I’m not sure what it is that they need to do where they need to be armed.”

Despite fierce criticism from Democrats like Van Hollen and protests from some Washington residents, the White House has defended its decision to surge federal law enforcement to the city and bring in the National Guard as necessary and legal.

Here are more highlights from Van Hollen’s interview

On D.C. police chief saying additional law enforcement ‘positive’
Raddatz: The mayor suggested this week that the surge of — of federal police could be useful in fighting crime. And there is a crime problem in D.C. We all live here. I want you to — I want to play you something that D.C.’s police chief, Pamela Smith, said this week.

Pamela Smith (video clip): You’re talking about 500 additional personnel in the District of Columbia. And as you know, we’ve talked about the fact that we’re down in numbers with our police officers. And so, this enhanced presence clearly is going to impact us in a positive way.

Raddatz: So, do you see anything positive about this?

Van Hollen: Well, I understand the position the police chief is in. The best way to help the police chief in Washington, D.C., is for President Trump and Republicans in Congress to give them the $1 billion in money that belongs to them so that they can hire those police, rather than bringing in these federal agents.

I would also say, Martha, I would think that taxpayers all over the country, federal taxpayers, have to ask themselves how it is that we are using resources, national resources, the FBI, the DEA, folks who are supposed to be out and about protecting the country from violent criminals, and now they’re spending their time taking down tents of homeless people in the District of Columbia. I would think people all over the country would worry about that diversion of resources.

On what Congress does if Trump goes past the 30-day limit
Raddatz: The — the president says he’s going to maintain control of D.C. police past this 30-day limit, no matter what Congress does. So, then what do you do?

Van Hollen: Well, that clearly is a violation of the statute. And so, we’ll end up right back in court. Of course, the president also thought he had the ability to essentially take out the police chief and have his people come in and run the police department. A federal judge already said that that was not authorized. And in the same way, his ability to extend it beyond 30 days is not authorized. And so, they’re going to have to pass this statute in the — this extension in the Congress. And I don’t think that that’s going to pass.

On his reaction to the Trump-Putin summit
Van Hollen: Well, Martha, there’s no sugarcoating this. Donald Trump, once again, got played by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin got the red carpet treatment on American soil. But we got no ceasefire, no imminent meeting between Putin and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy. All the threats and sanctions that, you know, Donald Trump talked about, apparently, have been set aside. Donald Trump got flattered by Vladimir Putin. But when it comes to Ukraine under European allies, this was a setback. I do believe that Congress now, the Senate in particular, should move forward on bipartisan legislation that has over 60 senators as co-sponsors that would impose sanctions on Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Personal relations are important. And I have no objection to people talking. But you want to have a clear objective in mind. Clearly, Vladimir Putin had a clear objective in mind. And he came to Alaska and gave up nothing, whereas, you know, Donald Trump said he had hoped to do, you know, a ceasefire, he had hoped to fly in Zelenskyy maybe even while Vladimir Putin was there. None of that happened. And meanwhile, they’ve taken the pressure off the sanctions. I mean, again, Donald Trump was supposed to impose sanctions on Russia weeks ago now, and nothing. So, this was a victory for Vladimir Putin.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.