Uniformed National Guard troops are on active patrol across the National Mall in Washington, DC, as of August 26, 2025. The administration led by former President Trump has initiated or at least threatened to initiate the deployment of National Guard personnel in numerous American cities that are alleged to be ridden with crime. These announcements have sparked various reactions such as protests and legal action, but in some instances, they’ve been welcomed. The situation is complex with multiple cities, governmental bodies, and legal battles involved, and an understanding of the current dynamics of these deployments is essential.
The critical question is, which cities are on the focus list? Thousands of National Guard troops were dispatched to Los Angeles by Trump in June, and then to Washington, D.C. in August. This was the commencement of a succession of actions taken by the Trump administration towards deploying troops in different cities across the United States, a trend that has carried into September. Notably, a federal task force was set up in Memphis, Tenn. to tackle crime, though whether National Guard troops are part of this force was not clarified.
The state of Illinois communicated that the Trump administration is planning to send 100 troops to Chicago. The Oregon National Guard is also reportedly trying to meet President Trump’s demand for deploying 200 troops in Portland. Furthermore, the state of Louisiana is seeking up to 1,000 troops to address the high crime rates in cities like New Orleans, Shreveport, and Baton Rouge.
The extension of National Guard duties is also visible in Missouri, where the Guard was authorized by the state to contribute to administrative, clerical, and logistical tasks at Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facilities, following a request by the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, President Trump has identified cities such as Baltimore where increased state resources are due to be announced to fight crime.
As these deployments continue to cause debate, a key question arises: Are they legal? Two key laws come into play regarding this question. The first, the ‘Home Act Rule,’ gives the president authority over the National Guard in Washington, D.C., who are presently stationed there. However, such a rule does not extend to other states.
The second important law, ‘The Posse Comitatus Act,’ restricts the military from participating in domestic law enforcement roles without obtaining express permission from Congress. In light of this act, the U.S. District Judge declared that the deployment of troops in Los Angeles is in violation, although the ruling holds validity only in California.
The state of Oregon and the city of Portland are asserting their rights by seeking a court order to restrain further deployments, arguing that President Trump has exceeded his juridical rights. Yet, experts suggest that deployments in states under Republican management tend to be on firmer legal ground.
In this multifaceted situation, a distinct division emerges along political lines. Democratic governors are vocal in their opposition to these deployments. However, a broader, more alarming trend is arising, according to legal experts.
This trend relates to what analysts refer to as the ‘normalization’ of the presence of armed uniformed personnel patrolling the streets of America. This presence is viewed as being contradictory to the historical U.S. practice of limiting military involvement in civil affairs.
According to these analysts, the widespread deployments are steadily conditioning Americans to treat a militarized local environment as a status quo. The argument is that, as Americans go about their regular activities, they are being tacitly coerced into accepting the pervasive presence of armed troops as a part of their normal lives.
Although on the surface this might seem merely inconvenient or unsettling to some, there is an underlying intent and effect that can not be overlooked – intimidation. This tactic can have a profound impact on ordinary citizens, often referred to as ‘chilling effects,’ where people change their normal behavior in response to the presence of a perceived threat.
These chilling effects have already begun to be felt by many citizens. Given the nature of military deployments – traditionally a response to serious threats – the presence of uniformed troops in their neighborhoods can inject a persistent sense of fear and anxiety. This not only disrupts their daily routines but also tampers with the sense of safety and security that living in one’s own community traditionally provides.
It’s important for policymakers and courts to carefully consider the civil liberties implications and the possible infringement of democratic norms before such deployments can proceed. The increased presence of the military in local affairs should not be the new normal, but only used in conditions of utmost necessity and always within the bounds of local, state, and federal law.
Questions surrounding the legal, ethical, and societal implications of this increased military presence will likely remain central to the dialogue as America goes forward. And it’s critical that all views are allowed to be aired freely and without fear in the true spirit of democracy.
The post National Guard Deployed in American Cities: A New Norm? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
