In a year marked by a fierce national debate over crime and federal authority, President Donald Trump’s strategy of deploying National Guard troops to U.S. cities has ignited controversy from coast to coast. The latest flashpoints—Washington, D.C., Memphis, and proposals for Cleveland and Jackson, Mississippi—have drawn sharp lines between federal and local leaders, Democrats and Republicans, and even among officials within the same states.
The controversy erupted anew on September 18, 2025, when Rep. Shontel Brown, D-Ohio, forcefully denounced President Trump’s federal takeover of the Washington, D.C. police department at a House Oversight Committee hearing. According to Washington Examiner reporting, Brown’s rebuke came amid a swirl of National Guard deployments that began in August and included troops from her own state. "So we want to talk about abuse of power. Well, let me start here: President Trump's only expertise on crime is committing it, not preventing it," Brown said, making her opposition unmistakable. She continued, "Enabling it, not ending it and covering it up, not cleaning it up."
Brown’s remarks stood in stark contrast to those of her fellow Ohioan, Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, who recently called for deploying the National Guard to Cleveland in response to the city’s soaring violent crime rate. Miller, writing in the Washington Examiner, argued, “Some will argue that bringing in the National Guard is an extreme measure. I would argue that allowing lawlessness to continue unchecked is far more extreme.” FBI data shows Cleveland now ranks sixth in the nation for violent crime per capita, with 1,561 incidents per 100,000 people—a figure more than four times the national average and over five times the Ohio average.
Ohio’s governor, Mike DeWine, took a different tack. While he authorized Ohio National Guard troops to remain in Washington, D.C. through November, DeWine said he would not send the Guard into Ohio cities solely to crack down on crime. “I'm not going to send in the National Guard to one of our cities in Ohio, just to be able to focus specifically on crime,” he told reporters. “We have a better, more appropriate, let's say, a more appropriate tool, and that is the assistance we can give for the Highway Patrol and other state agencies.”
Brown, for her part, advocated for a different approach: stronger gun regulations and increased funding for violence prevention programs, highlighting the freezing of Community Violence Grant funding for the Cleveland Peacemakers Alliance earlier in the year under the Trump administration. In her words, “Earlier this year Cleveland Peacemakers Alliance, a local violence prevention organization, had its Community Violence Grant funding frozen by this administration.”
The debate over federal intervention is hardly limited to Ohio. President Trump’s announcement on September 15, 2025, that National Guard troops would be deployed to Memphis, Tennessee, confirmed days of speculation and sent shockwaves through the city’s political establishment. According to Fox and Friends and The Commercial Appeal, Memphis became the first city in a Republican-led state to receive such a deployment under Trump’s second term. With a Democratic mayor, Paul Young, and a Republican governor, Bill Lee, the city’s political divide became a microcosm of the national struggle.
Mayor Young, speaking to The Commercial Appeal, said he had not requested the intervention but would “work strategically” to align the National Guard with local policing priorities. The deployment is part of a broader federal strategy targeting crime in Democratic-led cities, with Trump emphasizing federal intervention as a solution to what he calls “out-of-control crime.”
Yet the Memphis deployment also raised questions in nearby Mississippi. President Trump’s memorandum authorizing the National Guard’s arrival in Memphis put federal troops within three hours of Jackson, Mississippi’s capital, which has faced its own struggles with violent crime. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves, a Republican, has defended sending Mississippi National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., but has resisted calls to deploy them to Jackson—even though the city’s homicide rate has been among the nation’s highest.
Reeves explained his approach in a statement to the Clarion Ledger: Mississippi has taken a “different approach” by reshaping law enforcement in Jackson, transforming the Capitol Police from building security into a 175-officer street force, establishing a new court system, and appointing new judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. The governor pointed to a 43% drop in Jackson homicides compared with 2024 as proof his strategy is working, though researchers at Jackson State University note that this mirrors a nationwide trend of falling crime rates since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reeves has not ruled out calling in the Guard if conditions worsen but described Jackson’s crime fight as a “holistic approach” using tools “not available to the president.”
The politics of these deployments have become increasingly fraught. In Minneapolis, where a rash of gun violence—including the August 27 mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School—has stoked public fears, Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter are preparing legal and emergency response plans in case Trump tries to deploy the National Guard. "You have to be prepared," Frey told MinnPost, calling Trump's interventions a dangerous "game." Carter added in a statement, “Sending National Guard troops to occupy American cities oversteps federal authority, undermines local control and turns our military into a political prop.”
Frey emphasized that if Trump truly wanted to address crime and homelessness, he would increase federal funding for public housing and local police. “Instead, he is abusing his power and spreading disinformation about Minneapolis,” Frey said. The city’s Democratic governor, Tim Walz, opposes federal deployment without state consent, which limits Trump’s ability to act unilaterally. The president can only call up the National Guard without a state’s consent under narrow legal circumstances.
Legal challenges have followed these deployments. Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb has sued, calling Trump’s takeover of the capital’s police department an illegal “military occupation.” The Trump administration, however, cited the Home Rule Act, which allows for temporary federal control of the city in emergencies. Meanwhile, a federal judge ruled Trump’s June 2025 deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles illegal—a setback for the administration, though the ruling is paused pending appeal.
Mayors Frey and Carter, along with others in cities like St. Paul, have pointed to declining crime rates as evidence that local strategies are working. St. Paul’s homicides have dropped by 50% and assaults by 30% in 2025, which Carter attributes to partnerships between state and local government. “If the president wants a serious conversation about public safety, local communities like ours stand ready to show the way,” Carter said.
The debate is far from settled. Trump, undeterred by legal and political resistance, continues to draft plans to send federal troops into other cities, including Chicago and the Twin Cities, despite recent court rulings. As the 2026 midterm elections loom, the president’s tough talk on crime has become a central campaign issue, with Democratic mayors facing accusations of being soft on crime and Republicans touting federal intervention as a necessary response to urban violence.
For now, the nation watches as the balance of power between local control and federal authority is tested—sometimes in the streets, sometimes in the courts, and always in the crucible of public opinion.
