In 2025, under President Donald Trump's second presidency, federal government forces, primarily National Guard troops, were deployed to select US cities as part of a crackdown on crime, homelessness, and undocumented immigration. These actions target Democratic Party-led cities and sparked significant controversy, with critics labeling them as abuses of power and potential violations of laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement. Deployments began in Los Angeles in June 2025 and expanded to Washington, D.C. in August 2025; plans were underway for Chicago, Illinois and potentially other cities like New York, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Oakland. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Approximately 2,000 National Guard troops, including about 800 from D.C. and others from states like Texas, had been deployed since mid-August 2025. [5] The administration federalized the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department for 30 days and armed the troops for patrols in tourist areas rather than high-crime zones. [6] Trump claims this has brought "total safety" and a "miracle" reduction in crime, citing a week without murders, though data at the time showed violent crime was already declining in 2024-2025. [7] [8] Over 700 arrests and 91 illegal firearms seizures have been reported by August 24. [9] A poll conducted showed that nearly 80% of D.C. residents oppose the deployment. [10]
Earlier in 2025, Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to the city amid protests against immigration raids, overriding California Governor Gavin Newsom's objections. [11] This deployment is cited as a precedent and is facing legal challenges from the state, arguing it violates the Posse Comitatus Act. [12]
The Pentagon has been planning a military deployment for weeks ahead of August 2025, potentially mobilizing thousands of National Guard troops as early as September 2025. [13] Trump has repeatedly singled out Chicago as "next," calling it a "mess" and claiming residents are "screaming" for federal intervention. [14] No formal request has been made to Illinois officials, and crime data shows significant declines (homicides down 30%, shootings down 40% in the past year). [15] This could involve federalizing the state's National Guard in a declared "national emergency." [16]
President Trump has mentioned expanding to New York City (New York), New Orleans (Louisiana), Baltimore (Maryland), and Oakland (California) after Chicago. [17] [18] [19] Up to 1,700 National Guard troops are mobilizing across 19 states (e.g., Texas with the most) to support ICE on immigration enforcement, though the White House claims this is separate from the crime crackdown. [20] [21] These could serve as a "reaction force" for rapid deployments. [22]
Local leaders denounced the moves. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson warns it could "inflame tensions" and undermine trust in law enforcement. [23] Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker calls it an "authoritarian power grab" with no emergency justification. [24] House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accuses Trump of manufacturing a crisis. [25] D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and others highlight pre-existing crime drops and argue troops lack proper training for policing. [26]
Deployments in D.C. leverage unique federal control over the capital, but expansions elsewhere may require invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring emergencies to federalize state Guards, potentially bypassing governors. [27] Critics argue these are politically motivated, targeting Democratic cities for "theater and intimidation." [28]
Legal challenges to Trump's deployments cite the Posse Comitatus Act. [28]
On September 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer forbade the Trump administration from using the National Guard or military to enforce the law in California, including via "arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants", with that prohibition to take effect on September 12. He said the Trump administration, if it wished to argue, would have to "satisfy the requirements of a valid constitutional or statutory exception, as defined herein, to the Posse Comitatus Act." [29]