In recent weeks, the debate over deploying National Guard troops to American cities grappling with violent crime has erupted anew, with the Trump administration’s plans drawing both fervent support and sharp criticism. Leaked Pentagon documents obtained by The Washington Post reveal that the administration intends to send 1,000 Louisiana National Guard troops to some of the state’s most crime-affected areas—a move that has stirred controversy and left many questions unanswered about the scope and effectiveness of such deployments.
According to the documents cited by The Washington Post, the Defense Department is seeking to activate these troops under Title 32 of the U.S. Code. This provision would keep the Guard under Louisiana’s state control, but crucially, the federal government would foot the bill. If approved, the mobilization could last until September 30, 2026. Yet, as of mid-September, the Louisiana National Guard was not mobilized. LTC Noel Collins, Director of Public Affairs for the Louisiana National Guard, told The Center Square, “We are not mobilized in Louisiana. If/when ordered, we will support. We do not speculate about potential operations and their associated costs.”
Some Louisiana National Guard members are currently deployed in Washington, D.C. under Title 32, but details about their numbers and roles remain scarce. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has floated the idea of sending troops to other cities as well, with New Orleans, Chicago, and St. Louis featuring prominently in his remarks. At a Monday news conference, Trump stated he was considering a National Guard deployment to New Orleans, possibly after deployments to Chicago and St. Louis.
Louisiana’s Governor Jeff Landry has publicly backed the idea, emphasizing his willingness to accept federal help. “We’ll take President Trump’s help from New Orleans to Shreveport,” Landry said, referencing the state’s major cities. However, not all local leaders are on board. The Louisiana Democratic Party criticized the plan, writing in a Facebook post, “Louisiana doesn’t need a military occupation. We need leaders who invest in our people.”
Shreveport Mayor Tom Arceneaux struck a more nuanced note, expressing gratitude for the governor’s concern but also confidence in the city’s own police force. “While we are committed to solving our challenges locally, and I have full confidence in the ability of our police department to do so, Shreveport remains prepared and focused on the safety and well-being of our residents,” Arceneaux said. He added, “Any city our size can always use additional resources in the battle against crime. The question is how, when, and in what form to provide those resources.”
This isn’t the first time the National Guard has been deployed to address urban crime, but the legal frameworks and local reactions have varied. In California, for example, troops were deployed to Los Angeles under Title 10, which put them under federal—not state—control. According to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office, taxpayers covered $118 million for that deployment in Los Angeles alone.
Elsewhere, the Trump administration’s approach has been equally controversial. Chicago, long plagued by high rates of gun violence, has been preparing for a possible National Guard deployment for weeks, though the administration has not provided specifics about timing, troop numbers, or the roles troops would play. Trump has oscillated between insisting on a unilateral deployment to Chicago and suggesting he’d rather send troops to cities whose governors support the move, such as New Orleans. Most recently, he said Chicago is “probably next” after Memphis for a National Guard deployment.
Chicago’s city and state leaders have pushed back forcefully. Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker have both pointed to a drop in violent crime—573 homicides in 2024, a 25% decrease from 2020, according to the Rochester Institute of Technology—and called for increased federal funding for prevention programs instead of military intervention. “If it was about safety, then the Trump administration would not have slashed $158 million in federal funding for violence prevention programs this year,” said Yolanda Androzzo, executive director of the gun violence prevention nonprofit One Aim Illinois.
For many residents and victims’ families, the prospect of troops on city streets raises more concerns than comfort. Delphine Cherry, a Chicago mother who lost both her daughter and son to gun violence decades apart, remains unconvinced that military intervention would help. “They’re not going to ask questions,” Cherry told Associated Press. “They are trained to kill on sight.” Trevon Bosley, whose brother was killed in 2006, echoed these doubts, arguing that “the National Guard and police show up after a shooting has occurred. They don’t show up before. That’s not stopping or saving anyone.”
Recent deployments in other cities offer mixed lessons. In June, Trump sent thousands of Guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests over his administration’s immigration crackdown. There, troops initially guarded federal property, supported immigration agents during raids, and participated in visible shows of force in immigrant neighborhoods—a move that local officials said was designed to instill fear. In Washington, D.C., troops patrolled tourist-heavy areas, assisted with public maintenance, and contributed to more than 2,100 arrests in the first few weeks, including what the White House claimed was an 87% decline in carjackings. However, these deployments also drew criticism for aggressive immigration enforcement and concerns about cases being dropped due to insufficient investigation.
Washington, D.C. is unique in that it is a federal district, giving the president more direct authority to mobilize local police and federal forces. In other cities, especially those governed by Democrats, the prospect of federal troops on the streets is seen as an escalation—one that many leaders and residents view as political theater rather than a solution to systemic issues.
Trump’s rhetoric has done little to ease tensions. In a recent social media post referencing the film “Apocalypse Now,” he wrote: “I love the smell of deportations in the morning. Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.” Critics argue that such language, combined with the administration’s focus on immigration enforcement in so-called sanctuary cities, signals a political rather than practical approach to crime reduction.
As the debate continues, the fundamental question remains: will deploying the National Guard to cities like New Orleans, Shreveport, or Chicago address the root causes of violent crime, or will it simply add another layer of complexity to an already fraught situation? For now, the only certainty is that the issue has exposed deep divisions—between federal and local authorities, between political parties, and within the communities most affected by violence.
The coming months will reveal whether the administration’s plans move forward, and if so, what impact—positive or negative—the presence of National Guard troops will have on America’s cities.
