Trump Orders National Guard to Washington Amid Crime Concerns

Post by : Monika

Photo: AP

In August 2025, President Donald Trump ordered National Guard troops from West Virginia, South Carolina, and Ohio to assist in Washington, D.C. The deployment is part of a federal effort to address rising concerns about crime and homelessness in the city. This is one of the most significant federal interventions in local policing in recent years.

Details of the Deployment
The governors of the three states confirmed the deployment of troops to Washington, D.C.:

West Virginia: Governor Patrick Morrisey announced that 300 to 400 National Guard members would be sent. He expressed support for President Trump’s efforts to restore order and improve the city’s public safety.

South Carolina: Governor Henry McMaster approved the dispatch of 200 troops to assist local law enforcement at the request of the Pentagon. He added that the deployment could be reassessed if a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, occurred.

Ohio: Governor Mike DeWine stated that 150 military police officers would be deployed to conduct patrols and provide extra security. They were expected to arrive in the coming days.

With these additional forces, the total National Guard presence in Washington, D.C., will exceed 1,450 troops. This supports the roughly 800 District of Columbia National Guard members who were already active.

Purpose of the Deployment

President Trump has described the deployment as a response to what he calls “rampant crime” and “homelessness” in the capital. Using provisions from the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, he effectively placed the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control for the first time, allowing National Guard troops to operate alongside federal law enforcement.

The troops are assigned to support agencies such as the FBI, DEA, ICE, and Homeland Security. Their responsibilities include patrolling key public areas, assisting with crowd control, and helping local authorities ensure safety during high-traffic events and daily operations.

Reactions and Concerns

The federal intervention has triggered mixed responses from local officials and residents.

Mayor Muriel Bowser expressed concern over the federal takeover, noting that crime rates in D.C. have been declining. She questioned whether such a large federal presence was necessary.

• Attorney General Brian Schwalb challenged the federalization of the city police, arguing it undermines local governance and control over law enforcement.
• Residents voiced unease over the increased military presence in their neighborhoods, raising concerns about potential overreach and the impact on civil liberties.
• Protests have also emerged, with demonstrators opposing what they see as federal overextension into local affairs.

Support for the Deployment

Supporters argue that the deployment is necessary to restore order and improve public safety. They contend that the federal government has a role in addressing crime and homelessness when local authorities face challenges.

The deployment is also seen as a sign of President Trump’s commitment to law and order and his support for law enforcement agencies.

Challenges and Considerations

While the National Guard deployment aims to address public safety concerns, it raises questions about the balance of power between federal and local authorities. Critics argue that such a federal intervention may set a precedent that could affect civil liberties and local decision-making.

Monitoring the effectiveness of this deployment will be key. Officials and residents will likely assess whether the National Guard presence successfully reduces crime and addresses homelessness or whether it creates tension between federal authorities and local governance.

The decision to send National Guard troops from West Virginia, South Carolina, and Ohio to Washington, D.C., represents a major federal effort to tackle crime and homelessness. While the move has support from some officials and citizens, it has also prompted criticism and protests.

The situation remains dynamic, and the coming weeks will be critical in determining how effective this intervention is and how it affects the relationship between the federal government and Washington, D.C. authorities.