House Passes Bill Lowering Age Suspects Can Be Charged As Adults In DC
The Republican-led House has approved two critical bills aimed at curbing juvenile crime in Washington, D.C., and is scheduled to take up two additional related measures in the near future.
The D.C. CRIMES Act lowers the maximum age for trying offenders as juveniles from 24 to 18. It also requires sentences to match adult mandatory minimums and directs the city to publish public data on youth crime.
The second bill, the Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act, permits minors as young as 14 to be tried as adults for serious offenses. While both measures drew some Democratic support, the Reform Act passed by a slimmer margin than the CRIMES Act.
“Fully grown legal adults in the District of Columbia can receive sentences meant for children. That is simply insane,” said CRIME Act sponsor Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican.
The legislation is part of a broader package of about a dozen House measures advanced as President Trump deployed the National Guard and called on federal agencies, including the DEA and ICE, to address violent crime and illegal immigration in Washington, D.C.
Bills that pass the House will head to the Republican-controlled Senate, where their prospects remain unclear. In 2023, however, the Senate did approve a House measure blocking the District from easing criminal penalties — a bill later signed by then-President Joe Biden.
“I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule, but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections such as lowering penalties for carjackings,” Biden tweeted.
District residents elect their own local lawmakers, but under the 1973 Home Rule Act, Congress retains broad oversight of the D.C. government.
According to reports, the two bills set for House consideration Wednesday would permit police to physically pursue suspects in certain cases and curb the District’s role in approving local judicial appointments — further fueling debate over the city’s criminal justice autonomy.
Trump last year called up elements of the DC National Guard and surged federal agents into the nation’s capital in a bid to drive down criminal activity.
In the first week after the White House assumed control of Washington, D.C.’s police force, the city recorded a modest drop in reported crime but a sharp increase in immigration-related arrests, according to a CNN analysis of government data.
For the week beginning August 12 — the first full week under federal control — property crimes fell by about 19 percent compared to the week prior, while violent crime dropped 17 percent, based on the most recent Metropolitan Police Department statistics.
The trends varied by category. Robberies and car break-ins fell by more than 40 percent, while thefts remained flat. Burglary cases rose 6 percent, and assaults with a dangerous weapon increased 14 percent. Two homicides occurred during the period, consistent with recent weeks, though none have been reported since August 13.
Federal agencies have embedded with local police, assisting in arrests, searches, and warrant executions while patrolling the city in unmarked vehicles, CNN noted further.
At the same time, immigration enforcement surged. Since August 7, federal officials have arrested about 300 individuals in the district without legal immigration status — more than ten times the typical weekly number of ICE arrests in the city, CNN found.
In response to CNN’s report, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that the media was attempting to dismiss the “exceptional results” of Trump’s efforts in Washington, D.C.
“The drops in crime are not ‘moderate,’ they are life-changing for the countless of DC residents and visitors who have not been murdered, robbed, carjacked, or victims of overall violent crime in the last week,” Jackson said. “The priority of this operation remains getting violent criminals off the streets — regardless of immigration status.”
Feds Probe AOC For Employing Illegal Alien, Helping Migrants Evade ICE
Border Czar Tom Homan announced that he has officially opened a federal investigation into Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) over allegations that she employed an undocumented immigrant on her staff and assisted other illegal aliens in evading Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
The Trump administration is investigating Ocasio-Cortez for two alleged offenses: employing an undocumented immigrant who subsequently assisted another individual in evading ICE. In an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson, Homan stated that he has instructed the agency to pursue legal action against her.
“It’s being looked at (AOC employing illegal alien), can’t comment past that. I’m aware of it, we’ve asked ICE to drill in on that case,” Homan said. “As far as her educating people how to evade ICE arrests, she’s really educating them on how to avoid prosecution. Because there are statutes on the books when you knowingly hinder your removal, that’s a crime.”
Johnson questioned how an undocumented immigrant could have secured employment in Congress and potentially gained access to classified information.
“It is not possible,” Homan stressed, emphasizing that the congresswoman will be held accountable if such claims are accurate.
In March, Diego de la Vega voluntarily left the U.S. amid intensified deportation efforts by the Trump administration, citing concerns for his safety. He became politically active in 2010 when he supported the DREAM Act, legislation that sought to create a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.
Although the bill narrowly failed in the Senate by five votes, de la Vega, despite his undocumented status, worked as a “special assistant” to former Harlem Assemblymember Robert J. Rodriguez and interned for Representative Carolyn Maloney (D), the report added.
In 2022, de la Vega was appointed Deputy Communications Director by Ocasio-Cortez. In an interview with Migrant Insider, AOC praised him, saying, “Diego is amazing.”
Homan sent an email to the deputy attorney general requesting an investigation into Ocasio-Cortez.
That came shortly after reports emerged that the New York Democrat was hosting seminars teaching undocumented immigrants how to avoid ICE enforcement.
Following Homan’s email to the DOJ, AOC revealed that the Trump administration had yet to answer her requests about whether she is under federal investigation.
“I’ve asked them, they haven’t responded to me,” Ocasio-Cortez told Fox News. “But you know, I was once again fully using the First Amendment to inform people of their constitutional rights. They say a lot of things, but I’ve written a formal letter, and they won’t respond.”
The congresswoman organized a “Know Your Rights” webinar earlier this year, in which lawyers advised illegal immigrants on how to respond to interactions with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities.
The internet forum, held in both English and Spanish, provided legal advice and distributed papers, including one declaring that immigrants “do not have to open the door” for ICE officials unless they had a judge-signed warrant.
Ocasio-Cortez’s office also supplied information on how to receive pro bono legal assistance and urged undocumented people to sign privacy release forms, which would allow her office to interfere in deportation proceedings.
Ocasio-Cortez has forcefully denied any allegations that her actions were inappropriate, labeling the prospect of a federal inquiry “politically motivated.”
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him.
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him. For a few seconds, I honestly thought I was looking at the wrong table, because my name card had vanished and Melissa’s was sitting exactly where mine had been on every seating chart. She wore a pale blue silk dress, lifted her champagne as if she belonged there, and avoided my eyes when I stopped beside the chair. David stood up, pointed to an empty seat at the next table, and quietly said, “For tonight, why don’t you sit over there?”
I had spent fourteen months helping our daughter, Emily, plan that wedding, from dress fittings and florist meetings to late-night calls over napkins and seating charts. That morning, while I fastened the pearl buttons on her gown, she made me promise I would enjoy the day and not let anything between her father and me touch it. I meant that promise, because whatever was left of my marriage, I would not make my daughter’s wedding the battlefield where it died. But David had apparently made a different plan, and he expected me to cooperate with it in silence.
When I asked what Melissa was doing there, David’s face showed guilt for only a second before he hid it behind irritation. He acted as though I were creating the problem simply by noticing that his mistress was seated at the family table in the place reserved for the bride’s mother. Then Melissa looked at me and said, “Honey, today really isn’t the day to make Emily uncomfortable.” I almost laughed, because the woman who had been sleeping with my husband for nearly a year was now warning me not to embarrass my own daughter.
I could feel people settling into nearby seats, laughing and talking, unaware that my marriage was being quietly rearranged in front of them. David kept his voice low and told me we should not “do this here,” as if the humiliation belonged to me because I refused to disappear politely. I looked at the empty chair he had chosen for me between a cousin and someone from the groom’s side, and I realized something colder than anger. This was not spontaneous; he had thought about where Melissa would sit, and he had assumed I would move.
For twenty-eight years, I had been the woman who adjusted, explained, forgave, and made excuses when David forgot anniversaries, missed dinners, or put work ahead of family. When he became distant, I learned to expect less instead of asking for more, and somewhere along the way he mistook that patience for permission. Even now, part of me considered taking the other chair, smiling for photographs, swallowing the humiliation, and telling myself it was all for Emily. I actually reached for the chair because protecting my daughter still mattered more to me than winning a public fight.
Then I heard one word behind me: “Mom?” Emily was walking toward us in her wedding dress, still glowing from the ceremony, and at first she looked confused rather than angry. Her eyes moved from me, to the empty chair, to Melissa, then back to the family table where she had personally placed me months ago. David quickly stepped in and announced that he had “rearranged a few things,” as if changing the bride’s seating chart without permission were no more serious than moving a centerpiece.
Emily asked why I was not sitting in my seat, and David casually pointed to the neighboring table and said I would be sitting “right there.” Her smile disappeared, and her eyes dropped to the place card in front of Melissa. I watched my daughter’s expression go completely still as she picked up that card and turned it over in her hand. In that instant, I understood the worst part: Emily had not approved this, and David had brought his mistress into our daughter’s wedding believing he could force everyone to accept what he wanted once it was already done.
What Emily did not know was that six months earlier, I had discovered David’s affair through a message that appeared on his phone while he was in the shower. Melissa had written, “I hate pretending I don’t miss you when she’s around,” followed by another message asking whether Friday was still theirs. When I confronted him, David spent eleven minutes calling me paranoid, insecure, dramatic, suspicious, and unfair before I repeated Melissa’s words exactly. The silence that followed ended our marriage long before either of us ever said the word divorce.
We had kept the details quiet because Emily was planning her wedding, and I refused to turn her happiest season into a crisis about us. David told me he was “confused,” that what he had with Melissa was “more complicated than an affair,” and that he needed time before making decisions. I agreed only that Emily’s wedding came first, so we slept in separate rooms, spoke carefully, and tried to appear functional while our marriage quietly collapsed. I believed David understood that one day required restraint, but he had apparently used that silence to prepare something else.
Three weeks before the wedding, he had casually asked whether Emily had finalized the family table and whether every seat had been assigned. At the time, I thought it was harmless conversation, but standing there with Melissa’s card in my daughter’s hand, I finally understood why he had asked. He had been checking whether there would be room, and when there was not, he simply removed me. Emily looked up at her father and asked, very quietly, “Where is Mom’s place card?”—and for the first time that night, David had no easy answer.
…FULL STORY IN THE COMMENT 👇👇👇"" "
