It’s been a tumultuous September for America’s cities and the National Guard, as debates over local autonomy, federal intervention, and the ever-present challenge of public safety have come to the fore. The recent decision by President Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard to Memphis, Tennessee, has sparked intense discussion—not only in Memphis but across the nation—about the proper role of the Guard in domestic affairs and the balance of power between local, state, and federal governments.
On September 12, 2025, President Trump announced the deployment of the National Guard to Memphis, describing the city as “deeply troubled” during an interview with Fox and Friends, as reported by WREG and The American Prospect. The move followed a series of high-profile federal deployments in other major cities, including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and comes amid a broader Republican push to assert state and federal authority over Democratic-led urban areas.
The reaction in Memphis has been swift and divided. While an unscientific poll by WREG showed more than 80% of respondents supporting the National Guard’s arrival, city leaders have taken a more cautious tone. Memphis Mayor Paul Young publicly opposed the deployment, stating during a press conference that he learned of the decision from Trump’s interview, not from direct communication. “They are coming,” Young acknowledged, adding that while he does not support the move, he intends to collaborate with federal authorities to ensure any intervention is as constructive as possible.
“My goal is to ensure we have the opportunity to collaborate with them to strategize on how they can engage with this community,” Young said, echoing the concerns of many local officials who fear that a heavy-handed federal presence could undermine ongoing crime reduction efforts and erode trust between residents and law enforcement.
Memphis Police Chief C.J. Davis emphasized that the city’s police department has already been working closely with federal partners, including the FBI, ATF, and Tennessee Highway Patrol. Davis clarified that the National Guard troops coming to Memphis would be from Tennessee, not from other states, and that coordination is a top priority. “I’ve already been in touch with one of their representatives. We planned to meet next week to really sit down and talk. Ideally, we will have a memorandum of understanding. We all need to be on the same page about who is doing what,” Davis told WREG.
Tennessee Governor Bill Lee has also played a key role in the unfolding situation, confirming he’s been in “constant communication” with the Trump administration. Lee announced he would send 50 additional Tennessee Highway Patrol Troopers to support the Memphis Police Department, further underscoring the state’s commitment to addressing crime but also raising questions about the layering of law enforcement agencies and the chain of command.
As of September 15, 2025, details about the National Guard deployment to Memphis remain unclear. The exact timing, locations, and scope of the troops’ authority have not been publicly disclosed. This ambiguity has only fueled debate, with both supporters and critics anxiously awaiting further information.
Meanwhile, in North Dakota, the picture is markedly different. According to the governor’s office and Adjutant General Mitchell Johnson, North Dakota National Guard troops have not been requested for local or federal law enforcement operations. Johnson, who also serves as the director of the Department of Emergency Services, told the North Dakota Monitor that about 1,000 Guard members recently trained in their specialties, but there have been no discussions about imminent deployments for crime reduction or immigration enforcement.
“I would say we are always training to be ready for whatever we might be called for,” Johnson explained, emphasizing the Guard’s readiness but also its restraint. He noted that the National Guard can be activated either federally or by the state to support firefighters and local law enforcement, but such decisions are “situation dependent” and made with careful consideration. “Bottom line is, if resources are exceeded, and local resources are exceeded, for instance firefighting resources are not enough, then there’s a good chance that the National Guard is an answer, maybe not the answer, but an answer to that acute problem,” Johnson said.
North Dakota’s Guard has a history of supporting law enforcement, including during the 2016 and 2017 Dakota Access Pipeline protests and multiple deployments to the southern border. However, Johnson made clear that there have been no preliminary discussions about deploying Guard members for current domestic law enforcement operations. “Every situation is unique, with multiple variables to consider in determining whether Guard mobilization is appropriate and, if so, under which status,” explained Mike Nowatzki, spokesperson for Governor Kelly Armstrong.
Recent years have seen the National Guard called upon for a variety of emergencies, from wildfires to natural disaster recovery. In July 2025, for example, Texas Governor Greg Abbott requested assistance from North Dakota after flash flooding killed more than 135 people. The Fargo-based 119th Wing of the North Dakota Air National Guard flew drone operations for seven days in Texas, costing the state about $22,000. Such deployments, Johnson noted, are not taken lightly, as they pull Guardsmen away from their families and civilian jobs.
The broader context for these deployments is a growing national debate over the limits of local control and the increasing willingness of state and federal authorities to override city governments. The American Prospect reported that more than 800 bills stripping municipalities of local ordinance powers have been introduced in state legislatures this year alone. Republican-led states have moved aggressively to preempt local laws on issues ranging from minimum wage to policing, and have even engaged in mid-decade redistricting to dilute urban political representation.
Examples abound: Missouri’s state takeover of the St. Louis police department, Indiana’s creation of a state board to discipline local prosecutors, and Texas’s “Death Star” law banning cities from enacting ordinances that go beyond state laws. In Florida, businesses can now sue local governments over “arbitrary or unreasonable” ordinances, forcing immediate suspension of the contested regulation. These moves have disproportionately targeted Democratic-led urban areas, fueling accusations of partisan overreach and racial bias, given the demographic makeup of many affected cities.
Even within the Democratic Party, debates rage over the best path forward for cities. While left-leaning candidates like Zohran Mamdani gain traction in major urban centers, establishment figures remain wary of the party’s leftward shift. Yet, as city life becomes increasingly unaffordable and traditional solutions seem out of reach, the political winds may be shifting.
As the nation watches Memphis prepare for the arrival of the National Guard, the stakes extend far beyond one city. The struggle over who governs America’s cities—and by what means—has never been more intense. With each new deployment, legislative maneuver, or local resistance, the boundaries of American federalism are being tested in real time.
For now, city leaders, residents, and National Guard members alike are left to navigate a landscape where the answers are rarely simple and the consequences—intended or not—are felt on the streets where people live, work, and hope for a safer future.
