A prominent conservative lawyer has criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the federal takeover of Washington D.C.’s police force, arguing that Attorney General Pam Bondi made a critical legal error that could derail the effort.
One of Bondi’s first moves after President Donald Trump federalized the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department was to appoint the Drug Enforcement Administration’s director as the new police chief. But according to conservative attorney George Conway, the decision violated the statute that authorized the takeover.
Conway raised the issue during an episode of The Bulwark podcast with host Jonathan V. Last, calling the decision a serious mistake. “It was just incompetence on her part to have issued that order to begin with,” Conway said.
The overreach, Conway explained, gave D.C. lawmakers a chance to mount a strong legal challenge. Local officials have since sued, and a federal judge has signaled they are considering issuing a Temporary Restraining Order to block the takeover.
Conway added that the judge appears to prefer a negotiated resolution between the federal government and D.C. leaders before taking formal action. Still, he said the Justice Department’s approach left the administration vulnerable.
“It was a major misstep by the Justice Department,” Conway said. “Really incompetent lawyering, I think, and just overreaching.” The fallout, he warned, could complicate Trump’s broader plans for the D.C. police force. By straying so far from the statutory requirements, Conway argued, Bondi weakened the administration’s position.
“The Bondi order is so egregiously inconsistent with the statute and inconsistent with the executive order, frankly, that you know there was a misstep by Bondi and she has to cave,” he said.
The Justice Department has not commented publicly on Conway’s remarks or the ongoing litigation. For now, the federalization of the city’s police remains in legal limbo, with the courts poised to decide whether the Trump administration’s intervention stands or is rolled back.
The dispute underscores the political and legal risks of aggressive federal action in local matters. While Trump and Bondi presented the move as necessary for public safety, critics argue it undermines local governance and raises constitutional concerns. The potential court ruling in favor of D.C. lawmakers could mark a significant setback for the administration’s law enforcement agenda in the capital.