On the cusp of a new and controversial chapter in American domestic security, the Louisiana and Oregon National Guards are preparing for deployments to major U.S. cities, sparking heated debate among officials, military leaders, and the public. With President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calling for a visible military presence in urban centers, and state leaders voicing caution, the country finds itself at a crossroads over the role of the military in policing American streets.
In Louisiana, the National Guard acknowledged on September 30, 2025, that it is preparing to deploy up to 1,000 Guardsmen to support law enforcement across the state, pending federal funding approval. According to KALB, the mission would supplement police presence, provide logistics and communications support, and secure critical infrastructure in cities like New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport. Coordination with law enforcement partners in these urban areas is set to begin as orders are finalized.
Governor Jeff Landry, who announced the request for federal funding on September 29, stated that the troops would be deployed “through the end of Fiscal Year 2026.” He emphasized that the deployment’s purpose is to supplement—not replace—local law enforcement. The Guard’s statement made it clear: “No two Louisiana areas or cities are the same and each will require a specific operational approach tailored to their current situation.”
Major General Thomas C. Friloux, the state’s adjutant general, underscored the Guard’s commitment to professionalism, promising, “Service members are trained to support local, state and federal agencies and will carry out our duties with honor and treat all with dignity and respect.” The Guard also pointed to its recent experience providing security for high-profile events in New Orleans, such as the New Year’s Day terrorist attack, Super Bowl LIX, and Mardi Gras.
Yet, not all local leaders are on board. In New Orleans, police officials have insisted that any Guard involvement should operate under local direction. Assistant Superintendent Hans Ganthier told the City Council, “We have not requested the National Guard, but it’s foolish to think they’re not coming,” adding that the New Orleans Police Department should lead the effort since Guard members are unfamiliar with local crime hot spots. Council President J.P. Morrell warned that protests are likely if troops arrive and urged the city to prepare for de-escalation.
Baton Rouge faces its own challenges. Mayor-President Sid Edwards noted that while violent crime is trending downward, the police department is short about 150 officers. He welcomed additional resources, especially during large events or while hiring continues, but stressed, as reported by KALB, that any Guard presence should be “supportive rather than a replacement for local officers.” The Baton Rouge Metro Council remains divided, with some members opposing a military presence in neighborhoods and others supporting the move to ease the burden on local agencies.
Louisiana’s congressional delegation is similarly split. Some lawmakers back the deployment as a means to bolster security in crime hot spots, while others warn it risks militarizing city streets. Attorney General Liz Murrill voiced support, stating there is “still more work to be done” to reduce violence. However, recent data show that homicides have declined in both New Orleans and Baton Rouge, though New Orleans did recently experience its deadliest week since the January 1 Bourbon Street attack. Robberies and assaults in Baton Rouge, meanwhile, are on pace to surpass 2024 levels.
This debate in Louisiana is unfolding against a wider national backdrop. On September 30, President Trump advocated for a broader national expansion of federal military and law enforcement presence in U.S. cities, calling for “dangerous” cities to be used as “training grounds” for the military. At a gathering of senior officers in Quantico, Trump described urban crime as an “invasion from within.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the president’s rhetoric, vowing to end “politically correct” culture within the military and to focus on the “warrior ethos.”
These remarks have drawn sharp contrasts with the approach taken by state-level military leaders such as Brigadier General Alan R. Gronewold, the head of the Oregon National Guard. In a memo to his troops on September 29, Gronewold addressed the upcoming deployment of 200 Guardsmen to Portland, a mission requested by the Department of Defense through U.S. Northern Command. The deployment, under Title 10, means the troops will answer to federal—not state—command.
“I know some of you may have strong feelings about this mission. That’s okay,” Gronewold wrote, as reported by Oregon Public Broadcasting. “You are citizens first, but you’re also service members who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and follow the orders of the President and the Governor. That oath doesn’t come with an asterisk that says, ‘Only when I agree with the mission.’ We don’t get to pick and choose. We execute lawful orders with professionalism and honor, period. That’s what sets us apart. That’s what makes us the National Guard.”
Gronewold’s letter acknowledged the controversy and potential hostility surrounding the deployment. “I’ll be honest with you — I know this isn’t easy. Some people in Oregon won’t understand or won’t support this mission. Some might even be hostile about it. But we’ve been through tough situations before. We are professionals who do our duties, regardless of how it’s received.” He urged troops to be smart on social media, avoid posting operational details, and refrain from engaging in political arguments while in uniform. “Understand you represent something bigger than yourself, and the public is watching. Show them the professionalism I know you’re capable of.”
The Oregon deployment has sparked legal and political resistance. The Oregon Attorney General’s office has filed for a temporary restraining order to block the federalization of the Guard, and a coalition of 17 mayors across Oregon has voiced opposition. The state’s congressional delegation has also raised concerns about the federal government’s characterization of Portland as “war ravaged” and about the broader implications of using the military for domestic policing.
Across the nation, similar deployments and proposals have fueled fierce debate. In Chicago, the deployment of Border Patrol agents in camouflage near downtown landmarks was denounced by local leaders as racial profiling and political theater. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker warned that deploying Guard troops would increase fear in immigrant communities. In Memphis, residents have expressed concern about the impact of a federal surge on majority-Black neighborhoods. Meanwhile, in Portland, the presence of federal agents and military convoys has become a flashpoint for protest and legal action.
Amidst these developments, Gronewold’s message to his troops stands out for its emphasis on duty, restraint, and the constitutional limits of military involvement in domestic affairs. “To those mobilizing: Execute your mission with honor. Stay focused, stay professional, and stay safe,” he wrote. “To those remaining: stand ready. Support your teammates. And keep taking care of Oregon.”
As federal officials review Louisiana’s Title 32 request and Oregon’s legal battles play out, the nation watches closely. The debate over the military’s role in American cities is far from settled, and the coming months are likely to test the balance between security, civil liberties, and the traditions of American military service.
