Why is Trump deploying National Guard troops in US cities? All about the controversy

After deploying the National Guard troops in Washington, DC, citing a crime emergency, US President Donald Trump has threatened to extend the deployments to other cities, including Chicago and Baltimore.

The move has drawn sharp criticism and triggered legal challenges, particularly in Democratic-led states where governors are resisting federal intervention.

Also Read: Can Trump use McKinley’s 19th-century tariff playbook in today's world?

Trump orders troop deployment

According to Fox News, the Trump administration is preparing to mobilise as many as 1,700 National Guard troops across 19 states in the coming weeks to support immigration and anti-crime operations.

Most of the deployments are expected in Republican-controlled states, where troops will assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other law enforcement agencies.

In June, Trump summoned the Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, over the objections of local leaders, to subdue protests against his administration’s mass arrests of migrants. In August, he again called up the Guard to combat "violent crime" in Washington, DC.

On August 25, Trump issued an executive order instructing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to create “National Guard units around the country specifically trained and equipped to deal with public order issues.”

'Crime emergency'

In early August, Trump declared a “crime emergency” in the nation’s capital and authorised the deployment of nearly 2,000 Guard troops from DC and six states as part of the president’s anti-crime and immigration push.

The administration said the troops were needed to help federal law enforcement to address what Trump described as "out-of-control crime", despite data showing the city’s crime rate was at a 30-year low.

On August 22, Defense Secretary Hegseth authorised National Guard troops patrolling Washington to carry firearms. Trump’s authority is broader in the District, since DC is not a state and reports directly to the executive branch.

Over the weekend, protests erupted across Washington in response to the deployment. The operation has resulted in more than 700 arrests since early August, although the administration has not released detailed information about those detained or the alleged offenses.

Also Read: Trump threatens 200 pc tariff if China withholds rare earth magnets

Targeting Democratic-led cities

The development, seen as Trump's effort to override the law enforcement authority of state and local governments, comes as he is considering expanding the deployments to other Democratic-led cities, including Baltimore, Chicago and New York.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to send National Guard troops into Democratic strongholds, singling out Chicago and Baltimore as “out of control.”

He has blamed local leaders for mismanagement, telling reporters, “Chicago’s a mess. You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent. And we’ll straighten that one out probably next. And then we’ll help with New York.”

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker rebuked Trump, declaring, “You are neither wanted here nor needed here,” and accused the president of manufacturing a crisis. Maryland Governor Wes Moore has also sharply criticised the threats.

Chicago on the edge

The Washington Post reported on August 23 that the Pentagon has been preparing for weeks for an operation in Chicago, potentially involving both Guard and active-duty forces.

Asked about the report, the White House pointed to Trump’s earlier comments discussing his desire to expand his use of military forces to target local crime.

Trump has long singled out Chicago, drawing controversial comparisons between the city and war zones like Afghanistan.

But data paints a more nuanced picture of crime. Violent crime in Chicago has dropped sharply this year, marking the steepest decline in over a decade.

But Trump has continued to portray the city as a “killing field” and a national symbol of Democratic failure.

Also Read: Last-minute miracle may be sole saviour as Trump penalty looms closer

Rising state-federal tensions

The president’s threats have deepened tensions with Democratic governors. Illinois Governor Pritzker, joined by Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, accused Trump of seeking to intimidate political rivals rather than fight crime.

“This is not about public safety,” Pritzker said, calling Trump “an arrogant little man” trying to score political points. Trump brushed off the criticism, saying Pritzker “should be calling me” to request federal assistance. “It’s out of control,” Trump insisted.

Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson emphasised that Trump's administration had not reached out about its plans, as detailed in a Washington Post story. Trump acknowledged he hadn't talked to Illinois or Maryland officials and said he might not send troops unless Pritzker asked.

The White House also clashed with Maryland’s Wes Moore, who had invited Trump to Baltimore to discuss public safety. Instead, Trump threatened to “send in the troops,” mocking Moore’s record on crime.

Trump made the threat to Baltimore in a spat with Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat who has criticised Trump's unprecedented flex of federal power aimed at combatting crime and homelessness in Washington. Last week, Moore invited Trump to visit his state to discuss public safety and walk the streets.

Democrats fight back

The Trump administration has justified deployments by arguing that local and state officials have failed to restore order in their jurisdictions and citing a presidential power to use troops to protect federal property and functions.

In Trump’s announcement of the DC deployment, he painted a nightmarish picture of a Washington that’s been “overtaken” by “bloodthirsty criminals” and “roving mobs of wild youth.” That was at odds with a finding from the Justice Department in January that violent crime in the capital reached a 30-year low in 2024.

Democrats see a dangerous overreach by an aspiring authoritarian and have said they will challenge Trump in court if necessary. Trump's move is a way to cast Democratic leaders in affected locales as weak and ineffective, even as Trump exaggerates the violence he's ostensibly trying to stop.

The outcome of legal battles already underway, including California’s lawsuit over Guard use in immigration enforcement, could shape the limits of presidential power in future domestic deployments.

A test of presidential power

Trump’s aggressive deployment of the National Guard raises unresolved constitutional and legal questions about the president’s authority to intervene without a governor’s consent.

While presidents can invoke the Insurrection Act to federalize state National Guard units during unrest, this has historically been used sparingly and as a last resort.

The last time a president overrode a governor to deploy the Guard was in 1965, when Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama.

Trump has already gone further, creating “military zones” along the US-Mexico border where Guard troops detain migrants, a move critics say stretches the law.

Legal experts warn that deploying troops for routine law enforcement risks eroding civil-military boundaries. Former military leaders have also questioned whether the Guard can legally be used for broad policing roles outside narrow circumstances.

(With agency inputs)