President Donald Trump’s latest move to mobilize the D.C. National Guard has sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond, as the number of troops deployed to the nation’s capital has surged to 2,091—more than double the initial contingent of 800. According to reporting from OtherWords and People’s World, this rapid buildup of military presence is justified by the administration as a bid to restore security. Yet, the facts paint a different picture: D.C.’s crime rate is currently at a 30-year low, casting doubt on the necessity—and the motives—behind such a forceful response.
The scale and cost of the operation are staggering. At $530 per Guard member per day, the ongoing deployment is costing U.S. taxpayers over $1 million each day, as confirmed by OtherWords. With no set deadline for the mission, the final bill could reach into the tens or even hundreds of millions if the operation continues for months or years. The price tag isn’t just a number—it’s a reflection of priorities, and critics argue that this militarized spending comes at the expense of much-needed social programs.
“The daily cost of operating public housing for all 5,616 people who are unhoused in D.C. on any given night is one-quarter the daily expense of deploying the National Guard,” OtherWords reported. Put simply, for the cost of a single day’s troop deployment, the city could fund public housing for every unhoused resident for four days. If the Guard remains on the streets for three months, the total expenditure would surpass the annual cost of sheltering D.C.’s entire homeless population.
This pattern holds true across the six states—Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia—whose Republican governors have voluntarily dispatched hundreds more National Guard troops to Washington. Across these states, about 30,000 people are unhoused, yet the daily cost of providing safe shelter for all of them is less than a single day of the D.C. occupation, according to OtherWords. The numbers are even more striking in Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin, where the daily expense of the deployment exceeds the cost of public housing for the unhoused population by four, five, and fifteen times respectively.
Beyond the dollars and cents, the deployment has taken on a deeply political—and personal—dimension. President Trump has not only complained about supposed crime in the District; he has explicitly targeted people experiencing poverty and homelessness. In public statements, he has called for troops and police to forcibly remove unhoused people from the city, claiming the administration is “getting rid of the slums.”
For many advocates and residents, these words and actions are more than rhetoric—they’re a threat. “Trump’s decision to hyper-militarize our streets is transpiring on the heels of the MAGA budget bill, which cuts food and medical services for millions across the country to further enrich billionaires and war profiteers,” OtherWords observed. The commentary argues that deploying troops, rather than investing in what actually makes communities safe and prosperous, is “yet another attempt to scapegoat struggling people—especially communities of color—to advance a draconian agenda in service of billionaires, war profiteers, and white supremacy.”
Federal law generally prohibits deploying the military on U.S. soil except under extraordinary circumstances, and Trump’s actions have already sparked legal challenges. Earlier this year, the president ordered a 60-day deployment of troops to Los Angeles, again citing unfounded claims about violence and risk—moves that were met with resistance not only from local officials but also from the troops themselves. The current D.C. deployment marks the fourth time Trump has sent soldiers into American streets during his presidency, with Chicago reportedly next on the list.
On August 24, 2025, the National Guard in Washington took another step: members began carrying weapons and, according to a statement from the force, “detentions may occur leading to arrests.” This escalation, reported by The Washington Post, signals a deepening of the military’s involvement in local law enforcement and raises fresh concerns about civil liberties and the potential for confrontation.
The administration’s approach has drawn sharp criticism from a broad spectrum of voices. Advocates for the unhoused argue that prosecuting homelessness only exacerbates the problem, citing “abundant evidence that prosecuting homelessness only makes it worse,” as People’s World noted. Meanwhile, fiscal conservatives and centrists have questioned the wisdom of pouring millions into a military occupation when cheaper, proven solutions—like affordable housing and social services—are available.
Supporters of the president, however, argue that a visible military presence is necessary to ensure public safety and restore order. They point to concerns about urban disorder and claim that federal intervention is justified when local authorities fail to act. Yet, with D.C.’s crime rate at historic lows, critics counter that the deployment is less about safety and more about political theater and scapegoating.
The broader context is hard to ignore. The deployment follows the passage of the MAGA budget bill, which slashes funding for food and medical services for millions of Americans. Critics say this reflects a pattern: cutting support for the most vulnerable while ramping up spending on militarization. “Government spending on straightforward solutions that help poor and working-class people faces constant political backlash. But providing affordable housing to end homelessness in D.C. would be far cheaper than deploying troops—and would do far more to improve the city’s security,” OtherWords concluded.
For those interested in understanding the local impact of federal militarization, the National Priorities Project offers a “trade-off calculator” at NationalPriorities.org. This tool allows taxpayers to see exactly what they’re paying for—and what services they might be missing out on as a result.
As the deployment continues with no end in sight, Washington finds itself at the center of a national debate over priorities, justice, and the meaning of security. The coming weeks will test not just the city’s resilience, but the country’s willingness to confront the hard questions about how best to care for its most vulnerable—and at what cost.
