On October 19, 2025, President Donald Trump once again stirred the political pot, announcing in a Fox News interview that the deployment of the National Guard to San Francisco is not a matter of if, but when. With a tone both defiant and confident, Trump declared, "Don't forget I can use the Insurrection Act. 50% of the presidents almost have used that. And that's unquestioned power." He went further, stating, "We're gonna go to San Francisco. The difference is I think they want us in San Francisco. 15 years ago, it went woke." According to reporting from Fox News and Minute Mirror, these comments are the latest in a series of threats and actions by the Trump administration to extend federal troop presence into cities led by Democratic officials.
Trump’s rhetoric comes at a time when the relationship between federal and local authorities is especially fraught. Over the past several months, the administration has deployed National Guard units to cities such as Los Angeles, Washington, and Memphis—often without the blessing of local Democratic leaders. These moves have ignited a firestorm of protest from city mayors and governors, who see such deployments as a blatant overreach of executive power. In fact, judges in Chicago and Portland have already issued injunctions to block similar deployments, citing concerns about federal overreach and the constitutional boundaries set by the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.
San Francisco, the city now in Trump’s crosshairs, has become a national symbol in the debate over urban decay and the proper limits of federal intervention. Trump, echoing a narrative popular in conservative media, has repeatedly blamed rising crime, homelessness, and drug addiction in major cities on Democratic governance. "San Francisco was truly one of the great cities of the world, and then 15 years ago it went wrong — it went woke," he told Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo. He insisted that residents of San Francisco, unlike those in Chicago, "want" the National Guard because of what he describes as failed liberal policies. "If I were a Democrat, I would say, 'Come right in,'" Trump quipped. "What do you have to lose?"
The president’s claims, however, are sharply contested by local leaders. House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, and District Attorney Brooke Jenkins have all voiced strong opposition to any federal troop presence. Jenkins, in particular, warned that she "won’t hesitate" to press charges against federal troops if they break local laws while stationed in the city. Mayor Lurie, for his part, canceled a planned event with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff after Benioff’s controversial comments supporting military intervention. Lurie has repeatedly emphasized his trust in local law enforcement to keep the city safe, distancing himself from any suggestion that outside intervention is needed.
Salesforce’s Marc Benioff, a prominent figure in San Francisco’s tech community, found himself at the center of the controversy after he initially encouraged Trump to send in troops, provided they acted as police officers. His remarks, made ahead of the annual Dreamforce conference, drew fierce backlash from political allies and progressive activists. Benioff ultimately retracted his support after the conference concluded without incident, but the episode highlighted a growing frustration among some Silicon Valley executives over public safety in the city. Notably, other tech leaders like Elon Musk and David Sacks echoed Benioff’s original stance, reflecting a broader rightward shift among certain segments of the tech elite.
The push for federal intervention comes despite recent improvements in San Francisco’s crime statistics. According to city data reported by SFGate, crime is actually down 30% compared to the previous year, and recent protests—such as the No Kings March on Saturday—have remained peaceful. Legal experts argue that, to justify deploying federal troops, Trump would need to demonstrate that the city’s open-air drug markets pose a significant threat or that there is a genuine risk of violent rebellion. With neither condition met, any attempt to send in troops would likely face stiff legal challenges.
This isn’t the first time San Francisco has seen military or National Guard deployments. The city’s long and tumultuous history includes several notable instances: the California State Militia was called in during the 1877 anti-Chinese riots; troops from the Presidio were deployed after the devastating 1906 earthquake, when then-Mayor Eugene Schmitz ordered them to "KILL any and all persons found engaged in Looting or in the Commission of Any Other Crime"; the 1934 waterfront strike, known as "Bloody Thursday," brought the National Guard to the docks; and in 1966, following the police killing of Matthew Johnson Jr., the Guard patrolled the streets after looting failed to subside. More recently, in the wake of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the California Guard was mobilized for disaster relief, and in 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom partnered with the National Guard and California Highway Patrol to address the city’s fentanyl crisis—though in that instance, the troops were assigned to investigative roles rather than direct law enforcement.
Trump’s approach, however, differs sharply from these historical precedents. Previous deployments were either in response to natural disasters or intense unrest and were carried out with the consent of state and local officials. By contrast, Trump’s threat to send troops over the objections of California’s governor and San Francisco’s leadership marks a significant escalation. Governor Newsom has condemned such actions as "an abuse of executive power" and accused the president of "stoking division for political gain." Legal scholars warn that deploying the military without state consent would almost certainly run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act and invite a constitutional showdown.
The legal wrangling has already begun. In Chicago, a federal judge recently blocked the deployment of National Guard troops, finding no substantial evidence of a "danger of rebellion" during Trump’s immigration crackdown. The Trump administration responded by filing an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, which has so far been sympathetic to Trump on other emergency matters, including military policy and immigration.
As the debate rages, the stakes are high—not just for San Francisco, but for the broader question of how much power the federal government should wield over American cities. Trump’s campaign to "make San Francisco great again" may resonate with voters frustrated by urban challenges, but it has also united a broad coalition of local leaders, legal experts, and civil rights advocates determined to defend the city’s autonomy. With legal, political, and social tensions running high, the coming months promise to be a pivotal chapter in the ongoing struggle over the future of America’s cities and the limits of presidential power.
As San Francisco braces for what could be a historic confrontation, both sides remain entrenched. The city’s past is filled with moments of upheaval and resilience, and its future now hangs in the balance as the nation watches closely.
