Sending the National Guard into D.C. Is the Wrong Solution to a Crime Problem

Deploying the National Guard to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C., is the wrong solution to a perceived crime problem. Military forces are unsuited for law enforcement and can easily make the problem worse. A better approach would be to strengthen the D.C. police, the right tool for fighting crime.

Q1: What has the president directed?

A1: On August 11, President Trump announced that 800 National Guard troops would deploy to combat crime in Washington, D.C., while the federal government takes control of the city’s police force. Over the weekend, the administration had already dispatched FBI agents and other federal authorities to patrol the streets of D.C. These steps follow the president’s warning last week about “federalizing the city” to address crime, issued after a Department of Government Efficiency staff member was assaulted.

Q2: Why are military forces unsuited for law enforcement?

A2: The reasons are threefold. First, military forces are less familiar than police with the nuances of citizens’ rights and the conditions under which force is permissible (see Figure 1, which compares military training with that of the police). National Guard training focuses on combat—how to use weapons and fight—while police training focuses on handling crime and the law.

Second, military forces have the wrong attitude about civilians. Law enforcement is trained to see civilians as citizens who deserve protection, except in the most extreme circumstances. Military personnel are taught to treat civilians as potential threats and to always be ready to respond. Crowd control—in other words, dealing with unruly citizens—is the primary law enforcement training the National Guard receives.

Finally, military personnel are untrained in the complexities of gathering evidence and building a case that will stand up in court. Indeed, nearly half the Police Academy’s 27-week curriculum is dedicated to criminal procedure. Instead, military personnel are trained to remove the immediate threat, which often involves actions that would prejudice a court case and undermine the rationale for their actions (removing criminals from the streets).

Q3: Does the president have the authority to take these actions?

A3: Probably. The president’s orders to use the D.C. National Guard in law enforcement appear to be legally sound, though this will likely be tested in the courts. D.C. is different from the rest of the country because the federal government has much more control.

Much of the discussion about using the military for law enforcement turns on the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), a law that greatly restricts the use of federal troops in law enforcement. It was passed in 1878 after Reconstruction as a reaction to federal forces occupying and administering the former Confederate states and has been reaffirmed for 150 years. Americans have always been wary of the military’s involvement in civilian affairs. Military forces being involved in domestic law enforcement looks too much like martial law and military occupation.

The law provides exceptions for “cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” Presidents have sent in military forces to settle labor disputes, and courts have affirmed this presidential authority: the “strong arm of the national government may be put forth . . . to compel obedience to its laws.”

Using the National Guard raises separate legal questions because of its state connection. State governors command the National Guard in peacetime, and the National Guard is typically the first force outside of the police that communities call on. The courts have generally held that the PCA does not apply to the National Guard when not in federal service.

The president has direct control over the D.C. National Guard at all times because the district does not have a governor. The Department of Justice has long opined that the D.C. National Guard can operate without being subject to the PCA, but this claim has not been tested in the courts.

Q4: Can the president federalize the D.C. police?

A4: Yes. The president of the United States can use D.C.’s municipal police force, the Metropolitan Police, for “federal purposes” for up to 30 days, after which he needs a vote of Congress.

The administration stated that it has federalized D.C. police to “[maintain] law and order in the Nation’s seat of Government.” Under this broad mandate, the president will institute law enforcement approaches over the next month that he believes mayors of other major cities should implement. While there surely will be disagreements on the merits of specific reforms or practices, the Metropolitan Police is far better equipped than the military to address criminal activity in the city and engage with its 700,000 residents and 27 million annual tourists.

One specific duty identified in the executive order was the protection of national monuments and Federal property, a responsibility typically carried out by specialized agencies. D.C. has a plethora of federal law enforcement agencies as a result of hosting senior elements of the federal government. The list includes national agencies like the U.S. Marshals Service, Secret Service, and FBI, as well as agencies with defined jurisdictions, such as the Capitol Police over congressional grounds, Cathedral Police over the Washington National Cathedral, or Park Police over national parks. The D.C. police could reinforce these existing agencies. 

Q5: Won’t the military role be limited to support, and not law enforcement?

A5: Maybe. Initial reports had the National Guard providing support to the police, such as transportation and communications. This is similar to what troops have long done on the southwest border in support of the U.S. Border Patrol. It is not inappropriate but appears unnecessary. First, the D.C. police have 3,100 officers with 600 civilians in support. Adding 800 military support personnel likely exceeds operational needs and could result in a lot of standing around and boredom.

If the problem is a lack of support, the civilian economy can provide communications, transportation, and all manner of services at a much lower cost than the military.

Further, the mission could grow. In a Fox News interview, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that the National Guard will “not be involved in law enforcement functions” while also asserting that they will have “wide latitude . . . [to take] necessary action to protect citizens of D.C. and to protect themselves.” Troops have accompanied Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on raids in other parts of the country, so such an expansion of the National Guard’s mission in D.C. is possible.

Q6: Are there better ways for the president to fight crime in D.C.?

A6: Yes. The first action should be bringing the police up to full strength, despite the president’s statements that D.C. has enough police. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has set a goal of 4,000 officers. The city has fallen far short of that target for years, and the number of uniformed officers has been on a downward trajectory. The House recognized the centrality of the police by passing H.R. 2096, Protecting Our Nation’s Capital Emergency Act, by a bipartisan vote.

Conservatives argue that shortfalls result from anti-police attitudes as a result of the George Floyd murder and subsequent riots. District officials argue that the recruiting environment is difficult and that this challenge is one shared by police departments across the country. Regardless, the federal government could help. The Army turned its recruiting crisis around, and might help the D.C. police do the same.

If the concern is the protection of federal property, physical security could be enhanced. After 9/11, the federal government spent a huge amount of money on upgrading physical security. Similar measures could be adopted again. Physical security has the advantage that it is on duty 24/7 and does not require expensive personnel.

Q7: Looking ahead, what are the implications for D.C.?

A7: Sending in the troops is a dramatic political statement about the importance of an issue, and the Trump administration has frequently done that.

During his first administration, the president deployed more than 5,000 National Guard troops in response to demonstrations in D.C. protesting the death of George Floyd. As one of his first actions as commander-in-chief this January, the president deployed additional U.S. troops to the southern border. He sent 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June to contain protests against immigration raids.

The president will not be dissuaded from making that statement here. However, the troops should be replaced quickly with more effective measures, like expanding the number of police. As in carpentry or auto mechanics, it’s important to use the right tools to get the desired effects.

Further, relying on troops for temporary nonmilitary assignments may divert focus from Secretary Hegseth’s stated priority of increasing lethality, particularly with an eye on China. The Department of Defense cannot have it both ways. Either its primary focus is warfighting, or it is a temporary help agency for other parts of the federal government.

Mark F. Cancian (Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, ret.) is a senior adviser with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Chris Park is a research associate for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair at CSIS.