Washington, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s recent moves to deploy military force on American soil have reignited fierce debates about executive power, public safety, and the future of democracy in the United States. Over the past week, Trump has seized control of Washington, D.C.’s police force, called up 800 National Guard troops, and floated plans to use the military to protect the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games. These actions come despite the city experiencing its lowest violent crime rate in three decades, according to reporting from The Washington Post and CNN.
On August 11, 2025, Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher captured the alarm felt by many, describing Trump’s takeover of the capital as “troops-in-the-streets, shades-of-authoritarian-rule bad,” as quoted in The New Yorker. Yet just a day later, Fisher’s tone shifted dramatically. In his August 12 column, he portrayed Trump as an “astute-but-flawed leader,” arguing that the president “has an uncanny knack for identifying the problems that really bother voters” even if he rarely translates that “into helpful solutions.” Fisher noted the city’s atmosphere—teens on stolen ATVs, shoplifters, and carjacking horror stories—contributing to a sense of unease among residents, regardless of what crime statistics say.
Trump’s justification for the federal intervention was a so-called “crime emergency,” which he claims threatens the safety of D.C. and, by extension, the nation. Yet, as Washington Post columnist Megan McCardle pointed out on August 12, the city had seen “a massive 32% drop from the 273 people who were killed in 2023, but that probably wasn’t much comfort to those 187 people or their grieving families.” McCardle conceded, “I’m afraid [Trump] is right that in DC, crime and disorder are a major problem. The problem isn’t as big as it was a few years ago, but with crime, as with cancer, ‘somewhat less of a problem than it was’ is not really very good news.”
The Post’s editorial board, now headed by 33-year-old Adam O’Neal, struck a nuanced tone. In its August 11 editorial, the board wrote, “President Donald Trump is putting on quite the show,” and acknowledged that “armed troops on the streets of DC will probably have limited value.” The editorial went so far as to compare Trump’s militarization of the city to European models, where the distinction between police and military is less clear, though not always for the better. The board added, “Whether a genuine emergency exists is up for debate.”
On August 12, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, Trump’s handpicked prosecutor for D.C. and a former Fox News host, published an op-ed in the Post calling for tougher laws. She cited the case of a defendant who received probation under the Youth Rehabilitation Act after a nonfatal bus shooting, emphasizing the need for harsher penalties. Pirro referenced a news report that described the victim as harassing the defendant on video, suggesting the defendant tried to avoid confrontation. Her piece, while less incendiary than Tom Cotton’s infamous “send in the troops” op-ed in The New York Times, was still jarring for a paper that claims “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” according to Status’s Oliver Darcy.
The Post’s Letters to the Editor section on August 12 ran under the Trump-echoing headline “Making DC Safe Again,” further amplifying the administration’s crime narrative. This editorial direction marks a notable shift from the paper’s stance during Trump’s first term. In June 2020, when Trump deployed National Guard troops to D.C. during the Black Lives Matter protests, the Post editorial board warned, “Trump’s Threats to Deploy Troops Move America Closer to Anarchy.” Columnist Philip Kennicott wrote that the Guard “looked like outsiders, like a colonial force,” and an op-ed by Benjamin Haas and Kori Schake said, “The image of soldiers controlling America’s streets and engaging in law enforcement activity is evocative of the conduct of authoritarian countries from whom the United States takes pride in maintaining a distinction.”
This year, however, the Post’s tone has softened. The paper even spiked its intended endorsement of Trump’s opponent Kamala Harris and its owner, Jeff Bezos, attended Trump’s second inauguration as a guest of honor. According to FAIR.org, Bezos and Amazon have lavished tens of millions of dollars on Trump and his family, while Amazon and Bezos’s space company, Blue Origin, continue to secure billions in federal contracts. This close partnership is a marked departure from the adversarial relationship of Trump’s first term.
Trump’s ambitions, however, extend far beyond the capital. As CNN reported, he has repeatedly proposed using the military for domestic law enforcement, including at the border and in major cities. Two months ago, Trump sent active-duty Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles to guard federal buildings amid protests—the first such deployment in 60 years without a governor’s request. This escalation is currently the subject of ongoing litigation, with a trial set for next week to determine its legality.
On August 12, Trump said, “We’ll do anything necessary to keep the Olympics safe, including using our National Guard or military.” By the following day, he had expanded plans to increase the federal law enforcement presence in D.C., including a more active role for the National Guard. “And what a shame. The rate of crime, the rate of muggings, killings and everything else,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “We’re not going to let it—and that includes bringing in the National Guard maybe very quickly too.”
What’s striking, as CNN and The Washington Post both note, is the lack of any imminent threat. Crime rates in D.C. are falling for the second straight year, yet Trump continues to float the idea of military intervention. The administration has also authorized National Guard deployments to immigration facilities, escalating the military’s role in domestic law enforcement, though not yet authorizing participation in immigration raids.
Trump’s willingness to bypass governors and local officials when deploying troops is a sharp break from historical precedent. “The next time, I’m not waiting,” he said in 2023, a promise he has since acted upon. This reflects a broader pattern: in 2020, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper recalled Trump wanting to send 10,000 active-duty troops to D.C., and top adviser Stephen Miller proposed sending 250,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. By late 2024, Trump was warning of the “enemy within,” suggesting the National Guard or military should be used to handle supposed threats inside the country.
Not everyone is convinced by Trump’s law-and-order rhetoric. NAACP President Derrick Johnson called the situation in D.C. a “federal coup” on August 12, 2025, according to NBC News. Yet, this critique has found little echo in the Post’s recent coverage, which some former staff say is turning the paper into a “mouthpiece for the Trump administration.”
As Trump’s willingness to deploy military force domestically becomes more apparent, the nation faces difficult questions about the balance between security and civil liberties, the independence of the press, and the resilience of democratic institutions. With legal challenges looming and the 2028 Olympics on the horizon, Americans may soon have to decide just how much military presence they are willing to accept on their own streets.
