The Long-term Implications of Military Deployment in Washington, D.C.

One year ago, former President Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., alleging without evidence that the city was under siege by violent gangs and other criminal elements. This led to the deployment of approximately 800 members of the D.C. National Guard, along with over 1,000 National Guard members from cooperating states, aimed at safeguarding law-abiding citizens from criminal activities.

Despite the local government’s opposition, the number of troops has grown to 4,600, raising concerns of tradition violation, public safety risks, and significant financial costs. These actions have not shown notable impact on violence in the city.

Questionable Justification for Emergency Powers

Initially, Trump’s claim of a “crime emergency” was weak. The reported murder rate had decreased from 274 in 2023 to 187 in 2024. Even if crime rates had increased, such situations typically do not justify emergency powers, which should address sudden and unforeseen issues that existing frameworks cannot manage. Urban crime is a persistent issue and should be managed through normal governmental processes.

Risks of Military Involvement

The unprecedented use of troops for policing city crime contradicts longstanding U.S. civic traditions. Historically, Americans have opposed military involvement in civilian policing due to the potential for tyranny. The military is a tool for extreme situations where civilian authorities are inadequate.

Military forces, including the National Guard, lack police training, legal knowledge, and experience in safeguarding constitutional rights or handling evidence. Over the past year, cases of improper detentions and undue use of force by the Guard have been reported.

Cost and Effectiveness of Deployment

The intended goals of deploying the National Guard in D.C. have largely been unmet. While property crime saw a slight decrease initially, analysis indicates minimal effects on violent crime. Meanwhile, the financial burden on taxpayers is significant, exceeding $3 million daily. A recent $292 million housing deal for Guard members adds to these costs.

Despite the expense, many Guard members spend time on “presence patrols,” which implies a lack of substantial activity. The administration plans to maintain the troop presence through January 2029, with expenses projected to rise significantly.

The Concerns of Prolonged Troop Presence

The lengthy deployment schedule is troubling. An authentic emergency would not persist for over two years. This situation reflects an attempt to normalize military presence as a policing force, contrary to American values.

As National Guard forces increasingly engage in activities like overseeing public protests, the risk of using military for political purposes grows. Trump’s administration plans demonstrate this risk, with measures potentially undermining democratic institutions.

The decision to have armed troops patrolling during the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence brings historical context into focus. The founding generation opposed standing armies in times of peace without legislative consent, emphasizing the danger of normalizing military use in domestic issues.

The American public needs to recognize these risks and call for an end to the deployment. Awareness and action are crucial to preventing a shift toward acceptance of the military in civilian policing roles.

Joseph Nunn is a counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. He focuses on issues related to domestic activities of the U.S. military, including relevant legal frameworks governing military deployments.

© 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved.