Study finds deployment reduced opportunistic crimes but not violent crime

A federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday considered whether President Donald Trump has the legal authority to keep the National Guard deployed in the District of Columbia, with the administration asserting broad presidential power and the city arguing that the statute permits such deployments only for invasions, insurrections, or riots.

The arguments come more than a year after the deployment began and months into the underlying legal fight. Trump’s lawyer, Eric D. McArthur, told the panel that the president has the authority under federal law to order National Guard members into the District. Mitchell P. Reich, representing the District, countered that the law authorizes deployment only when an invasion, insurrection, or riot is under way, and that routine crime control falls outside that authority.

Reich told the court that the deployment is “dramatically altering life in the District,” making residents fearful in their daily lives, reducing trust in law enforcement, and complicating the work of the D.C. police.

The case arises from a lawsuit filed in September 2025 by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb challenging the deployment. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled the deployment unlawful, finding that the president lacked the power to unilaterally deploy D.C. National Guard or out-of-state troops to assist with crime control. In December 2025, a federal appeals court paused Cobb’s ruling pending the full appeal, allowing the Guard to remain in the city during the litigation.

The deployment followed an August 2025 Truth Social post from Trump threatening federal action if crime in the District did not abate. “If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the city, and run this city how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore,” Trump wrote. The administration then ordered National Guard members to conduct law enforcement activities in Washington and to perform continuous, daily armed patrols. Guard members have the power to detain people, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

Guard strength grew over the course of the deployment. Starting at roughly 800 service members, the force reached a peak of more than 5,000 in July, with troops deployed to the District from states across the country.

The deployment’s effect on public safety has been mixed, according to a May analysis by the Niskanen Center, a nonpartisan think tank. The analysis found that the Guard’s presence led to a 24% reduction in “opportunistic” crimes — including vehicle break-ins — but had no measurable effect on violent crime.

Outside the courthouse, Free DC — an organization that says it defends District residents’ right to self-governance against federal, congressional, and executive interventions — hosted a rally. Protesters chanted “51st state, not a police state,” reflecting opposition to the deployment.

Inside the courthouse, Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, told Medill News Service that the situation in Washington is “unique” and said the deployment should not set a precedent for military families across the country. Goldbeck outlined four concerns: that domestic deployments like the one in D.C. could undermine public confidence in the military’s non-partisan reputation; that National Guard members are not often trained in everyday civilian policing; that such deployments take funding from other military and emergency response groups; and that constitutional accountability is at stake.

Goldbeck also pointed to the toll on service members themselves. “It’s really important that we understand that these people are our friends and neighbors,” Goldbeck said. “They didn’t necessarily volunteer to be policing the streets of Washington, D.C., and these extended domestic deployments really take a toll.”

For now, the National Guard will remain in Washington while the case is pending.