The Controversial Use of National Guard in Washington, D.C.

One year ago, former President Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., asserting, without evidence, that violent gangs and criminals overran the city. In response, Trump authorized the deployment of about 800 D.C. National Guard members along with over 1,000 from other states to protect citizens. As of now, 4,600 troops patrol the city, contrary to the District’s local government’s preferences. This approach challenges American traditions, risks public safety, and costs taxpayers millions, yet shows no significant effect on reducing violent crime.

Questioning the Emergency

Trump’s declaration of a “crime emergency” lacked strong evidence. Murder rates in Washington had decreased from 274 in 2023 to 187 in 2024. Even if crime rates had been rising, it would not justify emergency powers, reserved for sudden crises that regular systems cannot handle swiftly. Urban crime requires traditional governmental approaches, not military intervention.

Concerns About Military Involvement

Deploying troops for street crime policing is unprecedented in the U.S. history. Americans have historically opposed military involvement in civilian affairs due to potential tyranny risks. The military should be reserved for situations when civilian authorities are overwhelmed. Additionally, National Guard members are trained soldiers, not police officers, and may lack knowledge of local laws and constitutional rights. Incidents have occurred where guard members improperly detained D.C. residents and used excessive force.

Ineffectiveness and Cost Concerns

The deployment has not significantly reduced violent crime, although there was a slight decline in property crime initially. It costs taxpayers over $3 million daily. Plans to provide housing for National Guard members in Washington have increased costs, already exceeding hundreds of millions. Guard members largely remain idle, described as engaged in “presence patrols.”

Trump’s Continued Commitment

Trump has intensified efforts with a “summer surge,” increasing forces to nearly 5,000 and planning to maintain this presence until 2029 at an additional projected cost of $1.4 billion. This prolonged deployment suggests an intention to normalize military presence in domestic policing, contrary to the intended short-term crisis response. Concerns arise about the potential misuse of troops in political situations, given their proximity to key government areas.

Standing Armies in times of peace

This situation unfolds during the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, which criticized King George III for maintaining armies during peacetime without legislative consent. The founding generation understood the threat a domestic military presence posed. The American public must recognize and resist this normalization.

Joseph Nunn works as counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, focusing on military activities within the U.S., including legislation related to military deployment.