In a move that has stirred both intense support and deep concern, President Donald Trump has dramatically escalated the federal government’s involvement in policing Washington, D.C., and potentially the nation at large. On August 31, 2025, Trump publicly justified his decision to deploy armed National Guard units to the capital and threatened similar action in other cities, such as Chicago, as part of what he described as a necessary response to a “crime emergency.”
“I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States,” Trump declared to reporters in the Oval Office this week, according to Rolling Stone. He insisted that if he believed the country was in danger, he had the authority to act—despite the fact that, as of late August, federal officials had touted that violent crime in Washington, D.C., was at a three-decade low.
Trump’s latest executive order directed the Pentagon to “immediately” create a special police unit within the D.C. National Guard to enforce public safety and order in the district. But the order didn’t stop there. It also called for building similar law enforcement capacity within National Guard units across the country, and for the creation of a “standing National Guard quick reaction force” capable of rapid deployment nationwide. The order anticipates Guard members “quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety.”
This sweeping expansion of federal policing powers has alarmed many legal scholars and civil liberties advocates. Liza Goitein, a national security expert at the Brennan Center, told reporters, “There is no statutory authority to federalize the National Guard for the purpose of policing local crime.” She warned that using soldiers as a domestic police force could have a “chilling effect,” particularly for those seeking to protest the president or his policies. Goitein emphasized that such a move could undermine Americans’ rights to free speech and assembly.
Adding to the unease, Trump’s order also envisions enlisting civilians with law enforcement experience to join federal law enforcement entities via an online portal. The language of the order is ambiguous, leaving open questions about whether these civilians would serve as paid employees or as a kind of federal volunteer posse. When asked for clarification, a White House official told Rolling Stone only that the portal is intended to attract qualified applicants who support Trump’s efforts to “crackdown on crime” in D.C.
The recruitment initiative is being overseen by a task force chaired by top White House adviser Stephen Miller, a figure known for his hardline positions and combative rhetoric. In a recent appearance on Fox News, Miller described the Democratic Party as “a domestic extremist organization,” accusing Democratic mayors of being “evil” and falsely claiming they rejoice in subjecting residents to a “constant blood bath.” Miller hailed Trump’s militarization of D.C. as a “liberation,” declaring, “President Trump has literally set the people of Washington, D.C., free.”
Such strident rhetoric and the prospect of recruiting civilians into a militarized federal force have raised red flags among experts and advocacy groups. Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, called Trump’s new executive order “the most dangerous step yet” in what she described as a “steady march” toward using the military as a partisan tool. “It’s a blueprint to use America’s military forces to police our own citizens,” Goldbeck said during a press call organized by her group.
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, a Vet Voice adviser, warned that Trump’s approach could stoke conflict between National Guard units from Republican- and Democratic-governed states. He described a scenario in which National Guard troops from one state could be deployed to another state against the will of that state’s governor—a move he called “blatantly unconstitutional.” Eaton cautioned that such a situation could spiral into a “blue-on-blue” conflict, a military term for fratricide, where American units might end up in direct confrontation. “The last time America had a blue-on-blue,” he noted, “was the Civil War.”
This concern was echoed by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, who addressed fellow governors in a press conference, warning against sending National Guard units into his state without consent. “Any action … violating the sacred sovereignty of our state to cater to the ego of a dictator,” Pritzker stated, “will be responded to.”
Meanwhile, the practical impact of Trump’s order is already being felt on the ground. On August 31, South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden announced the deployment of 12 South Dakota National Guard soldiers to Washington, D.C., at Trump’s request. “South Dakota stands in solidarity with President Trump and his efforts to Make America Safe Again,” Rhoden said in a statement. The guardsmen, from the 129th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment based in Rapid City, were assigned to serve in the joint information command center and activated under Title 32 status, with the initial deployment expected to last 30 days. The deployment is federally funded and, according to the governor’s office, was only announced after the guardsmen were safely on site.
South Dakota’s contribution is part of a larger mobilization. President Trump first called up 800 National Guard troops on August 14 to work with federal law enforcement and the Metropolitan Police Department. Since then, several other states—including Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia—have sent additional troops, bringing the total to over 2,200 National Guard members deployed in Washington, D.C., as of August 24. Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized Guard members to carry their weapons for the first time, though only in response to “imminent threat or serious bodily harm.”
The increased federal police presence has also led to more aggressive law enforcement tactics. According to court records cited by The Washington Post, U.S. Park Police initiated at least 10 car chases in the three weeks prior to August 31 as part of Trump’s federal surge in D.C. The pursuits targeted drivers stopped for violations ranging from tinted windows and fake tags to broken headlights and running stop signs. These incidents underscore the tangible changes in policing style since the federal crackdown began.
For critics, the combination of militarized policing, partisan rhetoric, and the potential for inter-state conflict represents a dangerous erosion of democratic norms. Max Rose, a former Democratic congressman from Staten Island, told Rolling Stone, “The president’s intent is to scare the hell out of millions of people—principally his political opponents. That’s why it’s being done in such a public, brazen manner.”
Supporters, however, argue that the measures are necessary to restore order and protect families from crime. As Governor Rhoden put it, “We will not sit on the sidelines while crime threatens the safety of our families.”
With the lines between federal authority and state sovereignty growing increasingly blurred, and with the rhetoric on both sides heating up, America finds itself at a crossroads—one where the future of civil-military relations and the balance of power between federal and state governments may be tested as never before.
