On August 26, 2025, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes (D-DC) took a bold step on Capitol Hill, introducing a bill that could reshape the way military deployments are monitored in the nation’s capital. The legislation would require National Guard units and other members of the armed forces deployed in the District of Columbia to participate in a body camera program, mirroring the Metropolitan Police Department’s (MPD) established system. The move comes in direct response to President Donald Trump’s emergency crime order, which recently led to the deployment of more than 2,000 National Guard troops throughout Washington, D.C.
“The Trump administration has deployed more than 2,000 troops to D.C. who are wholly unaccountable to D.C. residents,” Holmes said, as reported by 7News. Her concern is not just theoretical—she’s focused on the lived reality of more than 700,000 D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, who, she argues, are disenfranchised and left without a voice in federal decision-making. Holmes believes that the introduction of body cameras would serve as a vital tool to promote transparency and protect both the National Guard troops and the citizens of D.C. from allegations of inappropriate or unlawful behavior.
The MPD’s body camera program, which Holmes wants to use as a model, is already well-established. It requires officers to wear cameras during their shifts, with footage stored for specific periods depending on what was captured. This footage can then be accessed by the public and the press, offering a window into police interactions and holding law enforcement accountable for their actions. Holmes’s bill would extend similar requirements to any military personnel deployed in D.C. in response to presidential orders related to crime or civil disturbance, not just during the current deployment but also in any future scenarios.
“Body cameras would promote transparency and protect both the National Guard troops and D.C. residents from allegations of inappropriate or unlawful behavior,” Holmes stated, echoing her letter to Congress. She emphasized that the public’s trust in those tasked with maintaining order is crucial, especially when those individuals are not answerable to the city’s residents or local government.
The backdrop to this legislative push is the recent and highly visible deployment of National Guard troops across Washington, D.C. According to Holmes, this move represents more than just a security measure—it’s a “raw assertion of power” over the city’s residents. She described the deployment as “a politicization of the military; a disservice to the members of the National Guard and their families; unwarranted; and possibly unlawful with respect to both the D.C. National Guard and the state National Guards.” Holmes has not minced words in her criticism, urging the Trump administration to remove the troops immediately and calling on her congressional colleagues to support her bill.
The issue of military presence in D.C. is not new, but the scale and nature of the current deployment have reignited longstanding debates about the city’s lack of statehood and self-determination. With no voting representation in Congress, D.C. residents are often subject to federal decisions without a direct say. Holmes, who has long championed the cause of D.C. autonomy, sees the body camera bill as one way to assert some measure of local control and accountability in the face of federal intervention.
Supporters of the bill argue that body cameras have proven effective in other law enforcement contexts, helping to de-escalate tense situations and providing objective records in the event of disputes or allegations of misconduct. The MPD’s program, for example, has been credited with increasing transparency and fostering greater trust between officers and the communities they serve. Extending such measures to the military, proponents say, would only strengthen these benefits, particularly in a city where the relationship between residents and federal authorities can often feel fraught.
Critics of the deployment—and by extension, supporters of Holmes’s bill—see the presence of thousands of National Guard troops as an unnecessary show of force, one that risks escalating tensions rather than calming them. They point to the fact that the troops are not accountable to local officials or the people they are ostensibly protecting, raising concerns about potential overreach and the erosion of civil liberties. Holmes’s bill, they argue, is a necessary check on this power, ensuring that any actions taken by the military in D.C. are subject to the same scrutiny as those of local police.
On the other hand, some defenders of the Trump administration’s actions maintain that the deployment was necessary to address an uptick in crime and ensure public safety. They argue that the federal government has both the authority and the responsibility to intervene in the capital when circumstances demand. For these voices, the presence of the National Guard is a matter of security, not politics, and additional oversight measures—such as body cameras—should not impede the ability of troops to carry out their duties effectively.
Still, the reality on the ground is that many D.C. residents feel caught in the middle, subject to decisions made far above their heads. The debate over body cameras for the National Guard is, at its core, a debate about who gets to decide how the city is governed and protected. Holmes’s bill seeks to tip the balance, if only slightly, in favor of those who call D.C. home.
The proposed legislation would require that all members of the Armed Forces, including the National Guard, deployed in D.C. in response to a presidential order relating to crime or civil disturbance, participate in a body camera program “substantially similar” to that of the MPD. The bill makes clear that its provisions would apply not only to the current deployment but to any future deployments as well. It also underscores the importance of preserving and disclosing body camera footage, ensuring that the public and the press have access to records of military interactions with civilians.
As the debate unfolds, Holmes’s call to action has resonated with many advocates for police reform and D.C. statehood, who see the bill as a practical step toward greater accountability and transparency. Whether the legislation will gain enough traction in Congress remains to be seen, but its introduction has already sparked a conversation about the proper balance between security, oversight, and democratic participation in the nation’s capital.
For now, the city waits. The National Guard remains on the streets, and residents—along with lawmakers—watch closely to see whether Holmes’s bill will become law or join the long list of reform efforts stalled by the complexities of D.C.’s unique political status. What’s clear is that the question of accountability, both for the military and for those who govern the capital, is far from settled.
