:
Resolution criteria
YES if, by 11:59:59 pm ET on September 30, 2025, the federal government formally returns operational control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to D.C. local authorities (the Mayor and MPD Chief) by either:
An official written action rescinding or superseding President Trump’s August 11, 2025 directive asserting federal control over D.C. policing (e.g., White House/DoD/DOJ order or memorandum posted on their official sites), or
A federal court order (not stayed) that terminates the federal assertion of control and restores the Mayor/Chief’s sole command of MPD. Relevant public dockets/press releases or coverage by major wire services suffice to verify. (whitehouse.gov, upi.com)
NO if no such effective rescission/superseding action or court order is in effect by the deadline.
Clarifications:
Demobilizing the National Guard or reducing federal presence alone does not count unless the chain of command over MPD is returned to the Mayor/Chief. (reuters.com)
If competing claims exist, the market resolves based on the presence (or absence) of an official rescission/superseding document or an effective, not-stayed court order meeting the above.
Background
On August 11, 2025, the White House announced a directive to “restore law and order” in D.C., mobilizing the D.C. National Guard and asserting federal control over policing. (whitehouse.gov)
Following this, the administration installed a federal “emergency police commissioner,” prompting D.C.’s Attorney General to sue, arguing Section 740 of the Home Rule Act does not permit replacing MPD leadership or taking operational command. (washingtonexaminer.com, democracydocket.com)
Section 740 allows the President to request MPD services for federal purposes during an emergency, with time limits; its use here is unprecedented and contested. (en.wikipedia.org)
Considerations
A restoration could occur via executive rescission, a court injunction/decision, or congressional developments; partial measures that leave a federal appointee in the MPD chain-of-command would not qualify. (axios.com)