Thousands of National Guard troops in D.C. Is this the America we want? | Opinion
There aren’t many songs that drip with the dread Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young injected into “Ohio.” Even today, the anthem’s opening guitar riff is ominous, its whisper of cymbals is wounding, and the second guitar growls with anguish before the first lyric.
Then Neil Young sings,
“Tin soldiers and Nixon coming.
“We’re finally on our own.
“This summer I hear the drumming.
“Four dead in Ohio.”
Now, 55 years later, we know what can go so wrong when the National Guard errs. We either remember the events of May 4, 1970, or we read in history books about how the Ohio National Guard shot and killed four unarmed students and wounded nine others at Kent State University that day.
Now, 55 years later, governors in Ohio, South Carolina and four other states so far have said they’ll send National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., at the direction of President Donald Trump to combat crime in the capital the administration considers out-of-control even if that’s up for debate.
As in any city, the perception of danger in the nation’s capital varies depending on where you rest your head at night and what you’re doing. There are surely areas that are not as safe as others. There are surely concerns that need to be addressed. The question is: Should they be addressed by the National Guard troops of South Carolina, especially during hurricane season?
Gov. Henry McMaster announced his authorization of the deployment of 200 S.C. National Guardsmen “to support President Trump in his mission to restore law and order to our nation’s capital” on Saturday. He noted two details that directly and wisely addressed potential criticism.
McMaster said the feds would pay for this deployment under a government code section called Title 32, which is good news for state taxpayers if not Americans in general.
And as Hurricane Erin spun off our coastline, McMaster also said, “Our National Guard will work to assist President Trump’s mission, and should a hurricane or natural disaster threaten our state, they can and will be immediately recalled home to respond.” That would be essential.
A day later, Christale Spain, the chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, called the governor’s deployment “reckless” and didn’t stop there.
“The gall of Henry to think so little of our friends, neighbors and loved ones as to send our heroes away during the very time they are most needed here at home is a disgusting act of betrayal,” she said. “Our men and women in uniform aren’t political pawns. They deserve respect, and their first duty is to protect South Carolina families, not to serve as props for a political stunt hundreds of miles away.”
Luckily, Hurricane Erin wasn’t expected to make landfall along our coast as it heads north. But this week, lifeguards in Hilton Head were advising people not to be more than ankle-deep in the ocean because of rip currents, and evacuations were being ordered not too far away in North Carolina’s Outer Banks.
‘Deeply dangerous’
Of course, the issue has become divisive with Republicans urging Trump on and Democrats calling Trump’s federal takeover of police in the nation’s capital political theater.
The arriving troops hail from the red states of West Virginia, South Carolina, Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee.
In all, six GOP governors have pledged a total of 1,145 to 1,245 troops to work alongside another 800 Trump controls in D.C.
That’s 2,000 soldiers suddenly on patrol in the streets of the nation’s capital.
Others governors have declined the administration’s request to send troops. Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott said no because he, in the words of his chief of staff, “does not view the enforcement of domestic law as a proper use of the National Guard.” Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore said no because to him the mobilization “lacks seriousness and is deeply dangerous.”
On Aug. 14, the Army said the National Guard’s initial mission in D.C. was “to provide a visible presence in key public areas, serving as a visible crime deterrent” and that “they will not arrest, search or direct law enforcement” but will “have the authority to detain people temporarily. The Army said weapons would be “available if needed” but remain in the armory.
On Aug. 16, a White House spokesman framed the mission at least a little differently, saying the National Guard troops “may be armed” but would not be making arrests “at this time.” As we all know, missions change.
This week, The Washington Post interviewed locals in D.C. about the boosted military presence and surveyed residents to find eight in 10 oppose the federal patrols on the streets.
“Absolutely unnecessary,” one said. “Totally being done to distract attention from the Epstein files.”
“I don’t feel safe with the possibility of untrained FBI agents and military personnel who are untrained to do police services patrolling our streets,” another said. “We don’t need the National Guard who I can’t imagine what they’re going to do because we all know they’re not trained for this sort of thing, whereas the Metropolitan police are.”
The criticism isn’t affecting the Trump administration’s approach.
The other day, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “President Trump will not be deterred by soft on crime Democrats and media activists who refuse to acknowledge this rampant violence on our streets. He is going to make our nation’s capital the most beautiful and safe city on Earth.”
McMaster sent 200 of South Carolina’s about 11,000 total troops. West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey said 300-400 troops would “restore cleanliness and safety to Washington, D.C.” Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said 150 would “carry out presence patrols and serve as added security.” Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry said 135 would help “return safety and sanity.” Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said 200 would do “an excellent job enhancing public safety and supporting law enforcement.” A spokesperson for Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said 160 would “assist with monument security, community safety patrols, protecting federal facilities, and traffic control.”
Governors have long deployed National Guards troops in and out of their states, such as at the southern U.S. border, to assist presidents requesting aid. The reality is presidents can seek to deploy the Guard as they want, and often do.
Of note, of course, is that President Trump did not call the National Guard to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, the day more than 140 police officers were assaulted during a crime against the U.S. Capitol building and the very idea of democracy.
But the South Carolina National Guard helped keep the peace during Democratic President Joe Biden’s 2021 inauguration and during Trump’s this year, so we also know what it looks like when the National Guard handles its duties well. It can be of service in large missions with lots of agencies, helping Americans in and out of their respective states in times of emergency or need.
‘Difficult to measure’
In January 2025, the outgoing U.S. attorney for the district, Matthew M. Graves, issued a news release proclaiming total violent crime in D.C. was the lowest it had been in over 30 years.
“A central component of this strategy has been targeting those crews who have preyed upon certain neighborhoods in our community, often operating drug trafficking networks in these neighborhoods,” the release said. “These proactive investigations and prosecutions have yielded immediate reductions in violence that have had lasting impact.”
It’s that last part that matters most to people living in those neighborhoods: Lasting impact.
But now the Trump administration has called the accuracy of those statistics into question and the district’s new U.S. attorney, Jeanine Pirro, has now launched an investigation into them.
As recently as April, Pirro’s predecessor, interim U.S. attorney Ed Martin Jr. cited them to credit Trump with a year-to-date drop in D.C.’s violent crime of 25%.
Here’s the thing: While everyone is seeing what they want to see in D.C. crime numbers, no one is seeing the details.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the White House is sharing information daily on how many arrests have been made in the nation’s capital, but it is keeping details secret about each arrest that typically are released in D.C. and nationwide following an arrest for any crime.
This is the most troubling aspect of the federal intervention and it should be troubling to everyone regardless of political affiliation.
“The lack of specificity creates circumstances in which it is hard to say who is being arrested and who’s arresting them,” The Washington Post reported. “Meanwhile, Trump continues to tout the progress of the operation — progress that, without publicly available arrest data, is difficult to measure.”
While the White House releases a tally of arrests each day, it is not sharing anything resembling a standard public incident report that includes the location, date and description of the offense.
That is unacceptable, and Americans in South Carolina and every other state should be outraged.
How long will this last? It’s unclear. By law, the president can intervene in D.C. via his 30-day emergency declaration, but a longer military presence in the nation’s capital would require an act of Congress, which seems unlikely.
This is not an America any of us recognize or many of us want.
No one should simply accept this at face value without asking questions.
The big questions now are where is the National Guard being deployed, what are the details of this crackdown on crime, how long will it last and what happens when the troops leave? There are other questions, of course: Are armed troops patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C. a new reality? Will arrests continue to be made without any clear understanding of the process?
It’s impossible to know now whether this show of force will have a lasting impact on crime, but it’s easy to be appalled at the optics and aghast at the secrecy. This is not four dead in Ohio, but it sure feels like the slow death of open government.
Matthew T. Hall is McClatchy’s South Carolina opinion editor. Email him at mhall@thestate.com.