The Pentagon has launched an unprecedented effort to bolster the National Guard’s readiness for domestic unrest, ordering units across the country to undergo specialized civil disturbance training and form a massive 23,500-member reaction force by April 1, 2026, according to internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post. The move comes as President Donald Trump intensifies his campaign to restore what he calls “safe cities,” deploying the Guard to multiple urban centers and openly asserting his authority to send even more military forces into American streets if necessary.
The Pentagon’s new plan includes not only the large reaction force—drawing from National Guard units in all 50 states and three territories—but also a smaller, highly mobile 200-member federal quick reaction force, slated to be operational by January 1, 2026. This elite group is expected to be able to respond to crises within 24 hours, with a first wave deployable in just eight hours, The Washington Post reported. Both contingents are to be trained for civil unrest scenarios, equipped with Tasers, pepper spray, and crowd-control gear, and ready to support federal, state, and local law enforcement in quelling disturbances.
Most states are expected to contribute around 500 personnel to the larger reaction force, which is being assembled against a backdrop of mounting legal and political controversy. President Trump has already mobilized the Guard in cities including Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and Memphis. However, his attempts to send troops to Chicago and Portland have been blocked by federal court orders, underscoring the complex legal landscape surrounding the use of military forces on American soil.
“I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. I could send anybody I wanted,” Trump told reporters recently, doubling down on his authority to deploy the military domestically. He also assured U.S. service members stationed in Japan that “we’re going to have safe cities.” These remarks, reported by The Washington Post and NPR, reflect an administration undeterred by court challenges and determined to press its claim that it can send not only the National Guard but potentially other branches of the military into U.S. cities.
Yet, the legal framework for such deployments is fraught with restrictions. Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Guard troops placed under direct federal control are generally barred from participating in domestic law enforcement by the Posse Comitatus Act, unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act or under other narrowly defined circumstances. In contrast, Title 32 status allows Guard members to remain under the command of their state governors while receiving federal funding, and has been used to support police in the wake of natural disasters and, more recently, civil unrest.
Legal challenges continue to mount. The Supreme Court has requested more information before ruling on the administration’s attempt to send troops to Chicago, delaying a decision until at least mid-November. Meanwhile, a federal appeals court has agreed to rehear the Portland case, voiding an earlier ruling that had permitted the deployment. According to The Washington Post, critics argue that the administration’s approach risks blurring the traditional boundaries between the military and civilian government.
"They are increasing their ability to mobilize National Guard forces, federalize them and use them over the opposition of localities and governors," warned Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute, as quoted by The Washington Post. Schake cautioned that prolonged deployments in U.S. cities could strain the balance of power between the White House, Congress, and state governments.
Washington, D.C., has become the focal point of these tensions. As of late October, more than 2,300 National Guard troops are deployed in the nation’s capital, including 960 from D.C. and 1,427 from seven Republican-led states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia, according to The Hill. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently extended their deployment through February 2026, bypassing a planned November expiration. The mission, operating under Title 32 orders, is costing roughly $1 million per day.
While the official rationale for the deployment is to combat violent crime—President Trump declared a public emergency in August and put the D.C. police department under federal control—troops have spent much of their time on "beautification" tasks such as cleaning parks and picking up trash, as reported by both CNN and The Hill. Troops are also patrolling communities and federal landmarks, but there is little evidence they are directly involved in law enforcement activities such as making arrests or carrying out warrants.
Crime data from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) shows that violent crime in D.C. decreased 35 percent from 2024 to 2023, with homicides down 32 percent, sex abuse crimes down 25 percent, and robberies down 39 percent. In 2025 so far, violent crime is down another 29 percent, homicides by 27 percent, sex abuse crimes by 38 percent, and robberies by 36 percent. The U.S. attorney’s office noted that violent crime totals in D.C. hit a 30-year low in 2024. However, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has credited the surge in federal law enforcement agents—DEA, FBI, and ICE—rather than the National Guard, for aiding the city’s police. “What has worked is not the National Guard in helping enhance MPD services. What has worked is more DEA, more FBI,” Bowser told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in September, according to The Hill.
Legal opposition remains fierce. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed suit against the Trump administration in September, alleging the deployment violates the 1973 D.C. Home Rule Act and the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. The outcome of this legal battle could set a precedent for future uses of the National Guard in domestic law enforcement.
Meanwhile, President Trump and his advisors have been frank about their broader ambitions. NPR reports that both Trump and his immigration advisor Stephen Miller have discussed using the National Guard to support planned immigration raids and mass deportations. Miller described a strategy of deputizing National Guard troops from Republican-led states as immigration enforcement officers, even suggesting that, if Democratic states refuse to cooperate, Guard units from red states could be sent in. NPR notes that, so far, deployments have not involved troops making arrests, but rather supporting federal agents and protecting federal facilities.
Trump has also floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act if courts block his deployments, a move that would grant him broad authority to use military forces for domestic law enforcement. “President Trump will do whatever it takes,” Miller told The New York Times in 2023, as cited by NPR.
Immigrant advocates and legal experts warn that these deployments pose a threat not only to immigrants but to American democracy itself. Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center, told NPR, “What I have said repeatedly is that the path to authoritarianism in this country is being built on the paths of immigrants. They will begin with immigrants. They will not end with immigrants.” Matos and others express concern about the impact of armed troops on the streets during the 2026 midterm elections, fearing it could intimidate voters and undermine civil liberties.
With the Pentagon revising its plans for National Guard Reaction Forces and legal battles still unfolding, the future of military involvement in domestic affairs remains uncertain. What is clear is that the scope, cost, and legality of these deployments will continue to shape the debate over the military’s role in American life—and the balance of power between the federal government, the states, and the people.
