Washington, D.C., is once again at the center of a fierce national debate, as hundreds of National Guard troops from at least five Republican-led states pour into the capital under the Trump administration’s sweeping federal crackdown on crime and homelessness. The deployment, which began in mid-August 2025, has drawn sharp praise and condemnation from across the political spectrum, and it’s transforming both the city’s streets and its political climate.
The surge started after President Donald Trump signed an executive order federalizing local police forces and activating 800 D.C. National Guard troops. That number is set to more than double: Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Tennessee have all pledged additional soldiers, with the total expected to surpass 1,700 in the coming days, according to statements from state governors and the task force overseeing Guard personnel in D.C. (ABC News, Associated Press).
West Virginia was among the first to act. On August 16, Governor Patrick Morrisey announced the deployment of 300 to 400 Guard troops to Washington, declaring, “West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital.” Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves soon followed, sending 200 troops and stating bluntly, “Crime is out of control there, and it's clear something must be done to combat it. Americans deserve a safe capital city that we can all be proud of. I know the brave men and women of our National Guard will do an excellent job enhancing public safety and supporting law enforcement.”
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry joined the effort on August 18, adding 135 soldiers and echoing the call for “safety and sanity” in the capital. South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster authorized 200 Guard personnel, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine dispatched 150 military police at the request of the Defense Department. Tennessee, meanwhile, sent 160 Guard troops to help with monument security, community safety patrols, protection of federal facilities, and traffic control (AP).
While these deployments have been lauded by their supporters as a necessary response to crime and disorder, critics—including D.C. officials and some national lawmakers—see them as a dramatic overreach of federal power. “This doesn't make sense. The numbers on the ground and the district don't support 1,000 people from other states coming to Washington, D.C.,” Mayor Muriel Bowser said, noting that violent crime in the city has actually dropped 26% since 2024, reaching a 30-year low according to statistics from the Metropolitan Police Department (ABC News).
Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, was even more direct in his criticism, labeling the deployment a “manufactured emergency” and an “abuse of power” by President Trump. “Obviously D.C. can do more to reduce violent crime, as we can across the country. But as you pointed out, crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low and a downward trajectory. So, this is all an opportunity for Donald Trump to play dictator in Washington, D.C.,” Van Hollen said during a televised interview (ABC News).
The White House, for its part, has justified the move as an emergency response. In his order last week, President Trump declared that the “city government's failure to maintain public order” impeded the “federal government's ability to operate efficiently to address the nation's broader interests without fear of our workers being subjected to rampant violence.” The administration has also federalized local police forces and placed Attorney General Pamela Bondi in charge of the military operation in D.C., giving her oversight of both the National Guard and local police, as well as directing Metropolitan Police to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of city law (AP).
Despite the heavy federal presence, city officials and residents have noted that the capital is far from a crisis zone. Over the weekend prior to August 18, there were 137 arrests in the city, including 21 illegal firearm seizures, according to Attorney General Bondi. FBI Director Kash Patel reported that FBI agents were involved in 29 arrests as of Sunday night, with charges ranging from DUI and drug offenses to assault and destruction of property. However, neither Bondi nor Patel specified who made the majority of the arrests or the exact nature of the alleged crimes (ABC News).
For now, most Guard personnel remain unarmed, though officials have said that could change as more troops arrive. A White House official told CBS News that National Guard members “may be armed, consistent with their mission and training, to protect federal assets, provide a safe environment for law enforcement officers to make arrests, and deter violent crime with a visible law enforcement presence.” This marked a reversal from earlier statements that the troops would be unarmed and would not have weapons in their vehicles (CBS News).
Importantly, Guard troops are not making arrests themselves. Their mandate is to protect federal property and personnel, defend themselves if necessary, and assist law enforcement by detaining individuals briefly before handing them off to police. In one recent incident, a National Guard member helped a U.S. Park Police officer who had been assaulted while directing traffic, according to the National Guard. However, officials did not provide further details (ABC News).
The federal intervention has not gone unnoticed by D.C. residents. On August 16, demonstrators gathered at Dupont Circle before marching to the White House, carrying banners reading “No fascist takeover of D.C.” and “No military occupation.” The protest reflected the unease felt by many in the city, which has a long history of limited self-government and federal oversight. Mayor Bowser, in a letter to residents, wrote, “Our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now. If Washingtonians stick together, we will show the entire nation what it looks like to fight for American democracy—even when we don't have full access to it” (AP).
Not all Republican governors have joined the deployment. Vermont Governor Phil Scott declined to send his state’s National Guard, with his chief of staff saying, “The governor just does not support utilizing the guard for this purpose, and does not view the enforcement of domestic law as proper use of the National Guard” (Vermont Public).
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has stayed largely silent, declining to comment on whether it requested additional personnel from other states. City leaders, obliged to cooperate under federal law, have nonetheless bristled at the scale and scope of the president’s takeover, seeking ways to comply while maintaining some measure of local control (AP).
As the city braces for the arrival of even more troops, the political and legal battles over Washington’s future are far from settled. The deployment has become a flashpoint for broader questions about federal authority, local autonomy, and the balance between security and democracy in the nation’s capital. For now, Washingtonians find themselves at the intersection of these forces, watched by troops from across the country and wondering what comes next.
