President Donald Trump’s recent decision to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to the streets of Washington, D.C., has ignited a fierce debate across the nation, with ramifications stretching far beyond the capital’s borders. The move, made on August 13, 2025, was justified by the president as a necessary response to what he described as “out of control” crime in the city. Yet, according to official data, violent crime in Washington, D.C. has actually been declining since 2023, with the city reporting its lowest level of violent crime in 30 years as recently as 2024. This stark contrast between rhetoric and reality has left many residents, officials, and legal experts questioning both the necessity and the legality of the president’s actions.
On the night of August 12, members of the District of Columbia National Guard began their first operations in the city, conducting presence patrols near landmarks like the Washington Monument. Master Sgt. Cory Boroff, one of the Guard troops on duty, told The New York Times, “We just did a presence patrol to be amongst the people, to be seen. Of the people, for the people in D.C.” The following days saw a heavy federal presence on D.C. streets, with officers and agents making 23 arrests on August 12 and another 43 arrests on August 13 for various offenses, including homicide, narcotics distribution, lewd acts, reckless driving, fare evasion, and possession of illegal handguns. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that six illegal handguns were seized during these operations.
Despite the show of force, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser was quick to denounce the federal intervention. In a virtual town hall, she called Trump’s measures an “authoritarian push” and urged residents to protect the city’s autonomy and home rule. “This is a time when the community needs to jump in,” Bowser said. “To protect our city, to protect our autonomy, to protect our home rule. Get to the other side of this guy and make sure we elect a Democratic House so that we have a backstop to this authoritarian push.” She also revived calls for D.C. to become the 51st state, arguing that the lack of statehood leaves the city’s 700,000 taxpaying residents vulnerable to federal overreach. “We have seen a precipitous lessening of crime in the city, violent crime, especially after a post-Covid spike that we acknowledge, and we got after, and we drove down the numbers in 2023,” Bowser said on The Breakfast Club radio show. “We reported last year the lowest level of violent crime in 30 years.”
Trump, undeterred by the criticism, has expressed his intention to extend federal control of the D.C. police beyond the current 30-day limit. “We are going to do something and it's going to serve as a beacon for New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other places all over the country. Our whole country is going to be so different and so great,” Trump declared during a speech at the Kennedy Center. He also announced plans to host the Kennedy Center Honors in December, a move some see as an attempt to project normalcy amid the ongoing controversy.
The president’s remarks have sent ripples of concern through other major U.S. cities, particularly in California. Officials in Oakland and Los Angeles—both mentioned by Trump as potential next targets for National Guard deployment—have slammed the administration’s characterization of crime in their cities. Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee dismissed the president’s statements as “based in fear-mongering in an attempt to score cheap political points,” while Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the deployment “performative” and a “stunt.” Bass further distinguished between legitimate uses of federal resources, such as security for the upcoming 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, and what she described as political theater. “Using the National Guard during the Olympics is completely appropriate,” Bass said on CNN. “That is routine.” However, she added, “To say, well, we can take over your city whenever we want, and I’m the commander in chief, and I can use the troops whenever we want”—that, she said, crosses a line.
Legal experts have weighed in, noting that deploying National Guard troops to a city without a major crisis such as civil unrest or a natural disaster is highly unusual and potentially troubling. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, generally prohibits the use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement, reflecting a longstanding American wariness of military interference in domestic affairs. “We have such a strong tradition that we don’t use the military for domestic law enforcement, and it’s a characteristic of authoritarian countries to see the military be used in that way,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, told The Los Angeles Times. “That’s never been so in the United States, and many are concerned about the way in which President Trump is acting the way authoritarian rulers do.”
Unlike in D.C., where the president has direct authority over the National Guard, in states like California, the Guard is controlled by the governor, limiting federal intervention. Experts warn that any attempt by the president to deploy troops in California cities without state approval could prompt immediate legal challenges and widespread public outrage. “It would be awful because he would be clearly violating his legal authorities and he’d be sued again by the governor and undoubtedly, by the mayors of L.A. and Oakland,” said William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University. “The citizens in those cities would be up in arms. They would be aghast that there are soldiers patrolling their streets.”
Adding to the tension, the Trump administration is reportedly considering the creation of a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force”—a squad of 600 National Guard soldiers equipped with weapons and riot gear, ready to deploy to U.S. cities within an hour. According to The Washington Post, 300 troops would be stationed in Alabama and 300 in Arizona, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has indicated that additional specialized units could be called up if needed to manage protests or unrest.
California officials are particularly wary in light of recent events, including federal immigration raids involving masked, heavily armed agents. Los Angeles City Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who oversees planning for the 2028 Olympics, said the city is “a little nervous” about the federal government’s unpredictable security plans. “Everything that we’re seeing with the raids was a real curveball to our city,” Padilla said during a Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum event. She noted that such actions distract from pressing local issues like homelessness, transportation, and economic development.
Oakland officials, too, have pushed back against the administration’s narrative. Councilman Ken Houston pointed out that violent crime in Oakland—including homicide, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery—has dropped 29% so far this year compared to 2024. Property crimes are also trending down. “He’s going by old numbers and he’s making a point,” Houston said of Trump. “Oakland does not need the National Guard.”
As the debate rages, one thing is clear: the president’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., has set a precedent that could reshape the relationship between federal and local governments across the country. With legal, political, and public opinion sharply divided, the nation watches closely to see whether this “beacon” will light the way for a new era of federal intervention—or spark a backlash that reasserts the boundaries of American democracy.