National Guard in Washington DC to Be Armed: Trump’s Crime Crackdown Intensifies
In a move stirring sharp debate in the nation’s capital, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered National Guard personnel deployed in Washington, D.C., to carry their service weapons as part of the Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown on crime. The decision marks a dramatic shift in the high-profile mission that has already seen federal authorities assume control of the city’s police force, drawing both praise and deep criticism.
From Unarmed Patrols to Armed Troops
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of roughly 2,000 National Guard troops to the District, citing “out of control” crime in the city. Initially, both the Pentagon and the U.S. Army emphasized that those troops would not be armed, instead serving in visible support roles near landmarks such as the National Mall and Union Station.
That policy has now changed. In a Friday statement, the Pentagon confirmed that National Guard soldiers “will soon be on mission with their service-issued weapons, consistent with their mission and training.”
While it remains unclear whether the arming of troops signals an expanded mission, critics worry the optics alone will inflame tensions in a city where the deployment has been overwhelmingly unpopular.
Trump Declares ‘Total Safety’ in Washington
Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump touted the mission as a resounding success, declaring that the Guard presence has brought “total safety” to Washington. He described the city before the deployment as a “hellhole” but said it is now “safe.”
The president also hinted at broader ambitions, suggesting the crackdown could expand to other Democratic-run cities, naming Chicago as a potential next target.
“DC was a hellhole, but now it’s safe,” Trump said after visiting deployed troops. “And if Chicago wants to be safe, we can do that there too.”
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson swiftly rejected the idea, blasting Trump’s remarks as “uncoordinated, uncalled for, and unsound.” Johnson warned that any such deployment could “inflame tensions between residents and law enforcement” and undermine local progress in reducing crime.
Political and Legal Flashpoints
For many Washington residents, the presence of armed troops is not seen as reassuring but as a symbol of federal overreach. A Washington Post–Schar School poll conducted earlier this week found nearly 80% of residents oppose both the deployment of the National Guard and the federal takeover of the city’s Metropolitan Police Department.
Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat and longtime critic of Trump’s interventions in local governance, has not yet commented on the decision to arm the Guard. However, she has previously pointed to a “huge decrease in crime” and claimed that the city is experiencing its lowest violent crime rate in three decades.
The administration argues otherwise. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on social media Friday that the operation has so far led to more than 700 arrests and the seizure of 91 illegal firearms. Supporters in Trump’s camp say the numbers show the crackdown is working, even if unpopular among locals.
National Emergency on the Table
The Guard’s current deployment is set to expire after 30 days, but Trump suggested he may invoke emergency powers to keep them in the city indefinitely.
“If I think we’re in great shape here, that’s one thing,” Trump said. “But if I don’t, I’m just going to say it’s a national emergency. If I have a national emergency, I can keep the troops here as long as I want.”
Such a move would likely trigger fierce legal challenges and further inflame tensions with the city’s government, which has long sought greater autonomy from federal oversight.
Federal–Local Tensions at a Boiling Point
The clash over the Guard deployment highlights long-standing disputes over Washington, D.C.’s status. Unlike states, the District does not control its own National Guard, which falls under presidential authority. That unique arrangement has fueled periodic standoffs between federal and local leaders, particularly during times of crisis.
Now, with troops set to be visibly armed on city streets, questions of constitutional limits, civil liberties, and political motivations are at the forefront.
“On paper, this is about crime,” said Dr. Matthew Reynolds, a political scientist at Georgetown University. “In reality, it’s also about control—who governs Washington, how much power the federal government should have, and whether military force should ever be part of urban law enforcement.”
A Symbolic and Practical Gamble
The Trump administration insists the crackdown is about restoring order and making residents feel safe. Yet critics argue the opposite—that arming troops will intimidate locals, deepen distrust of law enforcement, and set a troubling precedent for military involvement in domestic affairs.
Several Republican-led states, including South Carolina and West Virginia, have already contributed Guard forces to the mission, reinforcing the image of a federally backed operation with partisan undertones. At the same time, Trump is asking Congress for $2 billion to “beautify” Washington, even as the city grapples with a recent $1.1 billion budget cut imposed by the Republican-controlled Congress.
The juxtaposition—armed troops on patrol alongside promises of beautification funding—underscores the complexity and contradictions of the crackdown.
What Comes Next?
As the 30-day deadline approaches, Washington faces an uncertain future. Will the troops remain? Will they play a larger role in law enforcement? Will Trump declare a national emergency to cement federal authority over the city?
For now, the only certainty is that Washington residents are living under an unprecedented experiment in public safety, politics, and federal power. Whether it results in a safer city or greater unrest will shape not only the capital’s future but also the national conversation about law, order, and democracy itself.
