On August 18, 2025, President Donald Trump stood before reporters alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and made a bold claim: Democrats were calling to thank him for making it safe to dine out in Washington, D.C. "Democrats are calling me up and they’re saying, ‘Sir, I want to thank you. My wife and I went out to dinner last night for the first time in four years, and Washington DC is safe,’” Trump said, as reported by multiple outlets. He went on to assert that restaurants in the city had been busier in the last two days than they had been in a long time.
But the numbers tell a different story. According to research from Open Table, restaurant attendance in Washington, D.C. has actually dropped by as much as 31% since the president ordered the National Guard to the city and seized control of the capital’s police force for a 30-day period. This move, which Trump described as necessary to "rescue our nation’s capital from crime," has sparked controversy and debate across political lines and among city residents.
Last week, Trump invoked a rarely used federal authority to declare a "public safety emergency" in the District of Columbia. In the days that followed, roughly 800 D.C. National Guard personnel were dispatched to patrol the city’s streets, joined by an additional 700 Guardsmen from West Virginia, South Carolina, and Ohio. The deployment was sweeping and highly visible, with uniformed troops stationed at intersections, near monuments, and in areas popular with both locals and tourists.
This show of force was met with a range of reactions. While White House officials have pointed to the more than 380 arrests made by law enforcement personnel in the past week—many for immigration violations—and the seizure of 59 firearms as evidence of the operation’s effectiveness, not everyone is convinced. According to the Associated Press, National Guard members themselves are not directly making arrests, but are instead providing support to law enforcement agencies.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, raised a different set of concerns altogether. Over the weekend, Blumenthal sent a letter to White House and Pentagon officials, warning of potential delays in pay for the National Guard troops deployed to Washington. "While I recognize that these soldiers will be compensated eventually, I am troubled by the prospect of servicemembers not knowing when they will be paid next," Blumenthal wrote. "Any delay in compensation for their service will place many Guardsmen in financial hardship. Even though servicemembers understand that they will be compensated at some point, they should not have to wonder when exactly their next paycheck will come.”
Blumenthal’s letter highlighted a unique complication: while most National Guard troops are paid through their home states, the D.C. National Guard falls directly under the president’s command. This bureaucratic twist, he argued, could leave hundreds of troops in limbo, missing out on not only their military pay but also the salaries, housing allowances, and medical coverage they would normally receive from their civilian jobs. "Officials must ensure that none of the individuals involved face financial hardship because of the mobilization," Blumenthal insisted.
Despite the White House’s assurances that the deployment was necessary to restore order, critics have called the decision to militarize the city both unnecessary and deliberately provocative. Many pointed out that National Guard troops were patrolling areas of the city that have historically experienced few crime problems. Over the weekend of August 16-17, hundreds of D.C. residents took to the streets to protest the federal law enforcement deployment, voicing concerns about the impact of such a heavy military presence on their daily lives and the city’s reputation as an open, welcoming place.
For local business owners, the reality on the ground has been sobering. The Open Table data showing a 31% drop in restaurant attendance stands in stark contrast to Trump’s assertion that the city’s dining scene is booming. Several restaurateurs, speaking on condition of anonymity due to fears of political retaliation, described a climate of uncertainty and anxiety. Some noted that regular customers had canceled reservations, citing concerns about increased security, roadblocks, and the presence of armed troops.
“It’s not just about safety—it’s about the feeling you get when you see military vehicles outside your favorite café,” said one longtime D.C. resident. “People want to feel comfortable and relaxed when they go out, not like they’re in the middle of a crackdown.”
Meanwhile, the debate over the effectiveness and appropriateness of the deployment continues to play out in the halls of Congress and on cable news. Supporters of the president’s actions argue that the sharp increase in arrests and firearms seizures demonstrates that the city needed a stronger hand. They point to recent headlines about crime in the capital and argue that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
Opponents counter that the federal intervention has disrupted daily life, hurt local businesses, and sent the wrong message to both residents and visitors. They question whether the arrests and seizures justify the costs—both financial and social—of such a large-scale mobilization. And they warn that the precedent set by the president’s seizure of control over the city’s police force could have long-term consequences for the balance of power between local and federal authorities.
As for the National Guard members themselves, the uncertainty surrounding their pay and benefits remains unresolved. Pentagon officials have so far declined to provide a clear timeline for when the deployed troops will receive their compensation, saying only that they plan to follow up on the congressional request at some point in the future.
In the meantime, Washington, D.C. continues to grapple with the fallout from a week that has seen its streets transformed by federal troops, its restaurants emptied, and its residents divided over the meaning—and the cost—of security. Whether the president’s intervention will ultimately make the city safer, or simply more anxious, remains to be seen. One thing is clear: the nation’s capital is, for now, a city under watchful eyes, with its future direction very much up for debate.
