Since August 24, roughly 2,200 National Guard members stationed in Washington have been authorized to carry service weapons, according to an official statement.
The directive comes with strict conditions: troops may use force only as a last resort and only if confronted with an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
The decision adds a new layer to a deployment that began earlier this summer, when federal authorities increased their presence in Washington following protests and rising political tensions.
Trump Signals Broader Deployment Plans
President Donald Trump has hinted that Washington may not be the only city to see a stronger federal footprint. He told reporters at the White House that he is considering sending forces to Chicago, New York, Baltimore, and Oakland.
“The city has been invaded by gangs,” Trump said of Washington. “It was dangerous, it was terrible. We had to step in with the federal government to make it run the way it should.”
He also took aim at Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, warning that unless she “gets it together,” her time in office could be limited.
Trump’s tough rhetoric contrasts with the city’s own crime statistics. While violent crime rose steeply in the years following the pandemic, official data show that incidents have declined between 2023 and 2024.
Federal Agencies Already Active
Beyond the Guard, several federal agencies are now operating more visibly in Washington. The FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have each sent personnel to support law enforcement.
The multi-agency approach reflects Trump’s view that local officials have failed to keep crime under control, but it has raised concerns over overlapping jurisdictions and the risk of inflaming community tensions.
Chicago Considered the Next Target
According to reporting from The Washington Post, the Pentagon is reviewing options for a significant deployment in Chicago. Among them: sending several thousand Guard troops to the city as early as September.
The Defense Department, while confirming that planning is under way, insisted no final decision has been made. “We do not speculate about future operations,” the Pentagon said, adding that ongoing discussions are aimed at protecting federal personnel and property.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson condemned the proposal, calling it “uncoordinated, unnecessary, and deeply flawed.” He pointed to recent improvements in crime figures: homicides down more than 30 percent, thefts down 35 percent, and gun-related assaults down nearly 40 percent in the past year.
“The president’s plan ignores real progress,” Johnson said.
Plans for a Rapid Reaction Force
In addition to immediate deployments, the administration is drafting plans for a new Rapid Reaction Force designed to respond to protests and political unrest nationwide.
Pentagon documents reviewed by The Post outline a proposed unit of about 600 Guard members, split between bases in Alabama and Arizona, who could be mobilized within an hour of receiving orders.
The price tag could run into hundreds of millions of dollars annually, largely due to the need for round-the-clock readiness and aircraft on standby. Planners are exploring cheaper alternatives, such as using commercial flights for troop transport.
If created, the force would allow the president to bypass governors and deploy Guard units directly — a significant departure from the traditional balance of state and federal authority. Officials estimate the program could launch in fiscal year 2027 if funding is approved in future defense budgets.
Legal and financial challenges
The prospect of large-scale Guard deployments without local approval is already stirring debate. Critics say it threatens state sovereignty and risks militarizing urban life. The Guard is primarily trained for combat and emergency response, not routine policing, raising questions about its effectiveness in civilian settings.
Civil rights advocates warn that such measures could normalize the use of military tactics against domestic populations, eroding trust in democratic institutions.
Financially, extended deployments pose another challenge. Keeping thousands of troops and federal agents in place indefinitely would demand vast resources. The proposed rapid response system alone could consume a substantial share of the defense budget each year.
A test of federal and local authority
Trump’s push to expand the role of the National Guard reflects his broader approach to law and order: aggressive federal intervention in matters traditionally handled by cities and states.
Supporters argue the moves are necessary to combat crime and restore public safety. Opponents counter that they are politically motivated, constitutionally questionable, and fiscally unsustainable.
As the Pentagon refines its planning and cities brace for potential deployments, the fight over how far the federal government can — and should — go in policing America’s streets is set to intensify.
