In a move that has drawn heated debate and national attention, more than 2,000 National Guard troops now patrol the streets of Washington, D.C., following President Donald Trump’s declaration of a "crime emergency" on August 11, 2025. The deployment—comprising 800 D.C. National Guard members and over 1,200 reinforcements sent by six Republican-led states—marks one of the most sweeping uses of military force in the nation’s capital in decades, raising questions about public safety, federal overreach, and political motivations.
According to States Newsroom, the arrival of these troops began on August 18, with personnel from West Virginia, Louisiana, Ohio, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee landing in the capital. Louisiana alone sent 150 members, while West Virginia contributed up to 400. Governors Henry McMaster of South Carolina and Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia confirmed that the federal government would foot the bill for their states’ deployments. The total troop presence now stands at approximately 2,060 across D.C.’s 68 square miles.
The president’s emergency declaration came just days after a high-profile attempted carjacking of Edward Coristine, a former U.S. DOGE Service staffer, at 3 a.m. on August 3. Trump’s subsequent actions included placing the D.C. police department under direct federal control—a power unique to the president, since the District of Columbia lacks a governor—and mobilizing the D.C. National Guard alongside local police. The White House cast the deployment as a necessary response to crime, claiming the Guard would "protect federal assets, create a safe environment for law enforcement officials to carry out their duties when required, and provide a visible presence to deter crime."
Yet, as The New Republic and Virginia Mercury report, the context for this crackdown is not a sudden crime wave. In fact, violent crime in Washington has been falling since 2023, reaching a 30-year low by 2024. FBI data showed that, in 2024, D.C. experienced 926 violent crimes and 3,588 property crimes per 100,000 residents, with a murder rate of roughly 25 per 100,000—figures that, while concerning, are lower than those in several of the states sending troops.
For instance, Cleveland, Ohio, recorded 1,550 violent crimes and 4,446 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 2024, with a homicide rate of 35 per 100,000. Memphis, Tennessee, posted an even higher murder rate of 48 per 100,000, and Jackson, Mississippi, led the nation with a staggering 77 homicides per 100,000 residents. Even smaller cities like Beckley, West Virginia, saw violent crime rates comparable to D.C., with property crime rates far exceeding the capital’s. Despite these statistics, Republican governors from these states have mobilized their Guards to "restore order" in a city with lower crime rates than many of their own urban centers.
The presence of military personnel on city streets has sparked protests and fierce criticism from local officials, civil rights advocates, and Democratic leaders. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, questioned the logic of the deployment, stating that the growing number of out-of-state troops "doesn’t make sense" and emphasizing her lack of control over the situation. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb was more forceful, writing on X, "Let us be clear: armed soldiers should not be policing American citizens on American soil. Instead of making DC more secure, it undermines public safety and endangers our democracy. It’s DC today, but the same dangerous strategy can be deployed to occupy any American community."
Governor Laura Kelly of Kansas, chair of the Democratic Governors Association, echoed these concerns, urging her fellow governors to resist using their National Guard units for "a dangerous, politically motivated agenda." Kelly argued, "Our Guardsmen and women enlist to serve when needed in the case of domestic disasters, to ensure the public’s safety and to protect national security. To deploy them to another jurisdiction, without the request and consent of that state’s governor—or, in this case, the local authorities of Washington, D.C.—undermines the mission of the National Guard, wastes resources needed for real emergencies, and, perhaps worst of all, adds to the divisiveness that already threatens our United States."
Legal scholars and watchdogs have also raised red flags about the deployment’s constitutionality. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement, and while the D.C. National Guard is under presidential control, the use of out-of-state troops for policing duties treads into murky legal territory. As Virginia Mercury notes, most National Guard members are typically deployed for natural disasters and emergencies, not routine law enforcement, and many have civilian jobs and families they must leave behind when called up.
Despite the controversy, the Trump administration has touted the operation’s results. The White House reported that the Monday overnight operation of August 18-19 yielded 52 arrests and the seizure of nine illegal firearms. Since the start of the operation on August 7, more than 450 arrests have been made and 68 firearms seized, according to administration figures. Authorities also removed four homeless encampments during the most recent reporting period, bringing the total number cleared to 48.
The administration’s focus has extended beyond crime to immigration enforcement, with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directing the D.C. police to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. This directive prompted the city to sue the federal government, and U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes is expected to rule soon on whether the administration can compel such cooperation. Reyes has signaled she may allow the administration’s directives, potentially giving the president broad authority to direct local law enforcement.
Meanwhile, the duration of the National Guard’s presence remains uncertain. President Trump’s emergency declaration has 23 days left as of August 18, but he has signaled his intent to seek an extension and additional funding from Congress. The Department of Defense has not commented on how long Guard members will remain on duty, and many in the capital wonder if the city’s streets will remain under military watch for weeks—or even months—to come.
As the debate continues, some governors have declined requests to send troops. Vermont’s Republican Governor Phil Scott refused, while others, such as Nebraska’s Jim Pillen, voiced support for Trump’s initiatives but have not deployed their own Guards. The situation remains fluid, with the possibility of further deployments from other states if the administration’s requests continue.
For now, Washington’s residents and leaders watch warily as military vehicles roll past the Capitol and National Mall, wondering how long the city will serve as a testing ground for federal power and partisan agendas. The outcome of ongoing legal challenges and the president’s next moves could shape the boundaries of federal authority—and the role of the military in American cities—for years to come.
