Trump’s National Guard Deployments Aren’t “Safe” or “Beautiful”

Washington, D.C. is currently experiencing significant changes in its governance. President Trump’s declaration on August 11 of a “crime emergency” and his following promises to make D.C. “safe and beautiful” have caused many changes in the city and the greater country the past two months. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was put under federal jurisdiction, arrests have spiked substantially, federal agencies such as ICE and and the FBI are in collaboration with the MPD, and nearly 2,300 National Guardsmen have been patrolling the city. While President Trump’s reasoning for these changes is an “increase in violent crime,” recent violent crime rates are down by half compared to 2024, and have overall decreased in the past 30 years. These decisions threaten to normalize an overreach of presidential authority that is unprecedented in United States history.

The National Guard has the dual mission of homeland defense and disaster relief under state governors as well as acting as a combat reserve for the U.S. Army and Air Force when federalized. It is not meant to aid law enforcement or civilian control per the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. D.C. is unique because its National Guard troops don’t respond to a state governor as most troops do; instead, they work directly under the President. Due to this loophole, Trump doesn’t actually have to federalize the D.C. National Guard, meaning that they aren’t restricted to the Posse Comitatus Act and can participate in civilian law enforcement if ordered. 

It should also be noted that of the guardsmen stationed in D.C. during its State of Emergency from August 11 to September 10, around 1,300 of them were acting under Title 32 status as guardsmen from republican-led states. This means that while they weren’t actually federalized and were sent by individual state governors, they were directed by President Trump and received orders to operate under Trump’s “Task Force Beautification” plan, bypassing laws meant to prevent National Guard overreach. This is worrying because it blurs the line between federal versus civil control, and authorizes the National Guard beyond its legal boundaries. 

Though the State of Emergency in D.C. did expire and out-of-state troops were sent home, the D.C National Guard has remained stationed within the city along with other federal law enforcement teams. The deployment has been a huge cause of concern for the city throughout the last two months. While guard members have mainly been collecting trash, removing graffiti, maintaining public monuments, and monitoring tourist attractions, they’ve also assisted federal agents at driving checkpoints and sobriety tests, detained individuals, and aided in clearing homeless encampments. They’re also carrying firearms. Although this decision was reportedly made in the interest of self-defense for the guards, it signifies an escalation in Trump’s plans that wasn’t originally outlined in his “D.C. Safe and Beautiful” task force. 

According to a recent poll, 61 percent of D.C. residents feel less safe due to the presence of federal agents and the Guard, and eight out of 10 residents strongly oppose their presence in the city. Furthermore, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb announced on September 4 that he was suing Trump due to the act’s violation of the Home Rule Act and its role in increasing tensions in the city. Trump’s given reason for deploying the Guard and federal agents was to make a city with an already-lowering crime rate feel safer, but, if anything, the “Make D.C. Safe Again” initiative has served only to scare and intimidate city residents.

Trump has now also deployed a Federal Agent task force whose mission is to combat violent crime to Memphis, Tennessee, with National Guard troops expected to arrive soon as well. Portland, Oregon is also anticipating the arrival of the Guard—Trump’s response to largely peaceful protests surrounding an ICE detention center in the city—and has filed a lawsuit seeking to stop it. Trump has further threatened multiple times to send the National Guard to other cities, including New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Chicago. When taking into consideration Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to L.A. in June to quell immigration raid protests, a pattern becomes abundantly clear: Trump is targeting Democrat-led urban centers that have more diverse populations than fit the MAGA American standard. Connecting fabrications about violent crime with cities that tend to oppose the president and republican ideals gives Trump an excuse to monitor and invoke force over these areas in a way that seems like an advancement towards a state of martial law. 

National Guard deployment also distracts cities whose administrations would otherwise be able to focus more closely on Trump’s other activities, such as his involvement with the Epstein files, the airstrikes on Venezuelan vessels, and many other controversial actions. This is a move meant to discourage dissent and deflect from administrative misconduct, not protect U.S. citizens from crime. Trump’s actions aren’t actually meant to serve American cities, and federal control hasn’t been strengthened simply to centralize that effort—this is an exercise in authoritarianism.

Trump’s decision to employ the National Guard to American cities not only quells opposition, but takes away agency from local law enforcement and individual state governments. In a country where the right of the state to operate at a local level is meant to be a safeguard of democracy, Trump’s actions are insupportable. It is necessary to reestablish the laws surrounding the use of the National Guard as federal militia to prevent it being leveraged against American cities. The Posse Comitatus act, for one, is 147 years old—therefore no longer completely applicable to modern-day situations—and was written in a way that leaves too much to executive interpretation. By fixing these loopholes, it will be more conceivable to preserve the checks and balances of the American democratic system and avoid unnecessary federal overreach, making sure that every state is able to maintain its independence and authority against the whim of the presidency.