The deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., has raised significant legal and safety issues, culminating in a federal judge ruling the action illegal on November 20, 2025. The controversy centers on the use of military personnel for domestic law enforcement tasks, which critics argue endangers both the troops and civilians.
Concerns about the deployment were highlighted in an article by The Military Times, a publication recognized for its impartial stance. The article pointed out that the 2,300 National Guard members in D.C. were vulnerable while engaged in non-combat roles, such as lawn care, rather than performing their intended military functions. Analysts have warned that such domestic assignments create a “heightened threat environment,” risking the lives of enlisted soldiers.
This deployment contradicted statements made by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who emphasized a focus on military “lethality” and “warfighting ethos.” Following his remarks, the sight of troops in non-combat roles drew mockery, with foreign media referring to them as “Trump’s lethal landscapers.”
Critics of former President Donald Trump expressed alarm over his administration’s use of the military for political purposes, which prompted formal rebukes from former defense secretaries, including Lloyd Austin and Jim Mattis. They submitted a joint letter to Congress warning against the potential recklessness of this approach.
The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted over 150 years ago, restricts the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement unless under specific conditions, such as insurrection or rebellion. The Insurrection Act serves as a legal exception but also requires significant justification. Trump’s administration has faced scrutiny for deploying troops under various pretexts, including the need to combat crime in cities controlled by Democratic officials.
Despite the absence of insurrection or widespread violence, Trump continued to send military personnel into urban settings. Critics argue this approach exacerbates tensions and risks escalating violence, as it uses military forces in roles traditionally filled by law enforcement, which emphasizes de-escalation and protection of civilian life.
On November 26, just days after the federal ruling, two National Guard members were tragically shot while on patrol in D.C. Following the incident, one service member died. Instead of reflecting on the implications of this violence, Trump responded by placing blame on current President Joe Biden, claiming an unvetted influx of individuals from Afghanistan was responsible.
A reporter noted that the shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, had been vetted by both the CIA and the FBI due to his prior assistance in U.S. military operations. Trump’s retort to the questioning reflected a refusal to acknowledge established facts, opting instead to deflect responsibility.
Military advisers have consistently cautioned that placing armed service members on city streets increases risks for both the troops and the public. A member of the California National Guard expressed concerns to the New York Times, stating, “I knew that this would happen.” He articulated worries that the assignment heightened the potential for dangerous encounters between military personnel and civilians.
In light of these incidents, Trump has decided to deploy an additional 500 troops to D.C. while simultaneously halting immigration from poorer nations. The Department of Homeland Security announced a review of asylum cases approved during Biden’s term, despite the fact that Lakanwal’s asylum was granted during Trump’s presidency.
The ongoing situation surrounding the deployment of military troops in domestic environments raises critical questions about the balance between national security and the protection of civil liberties. The legal precedents established by the Posse Comitatus Act remain a fundamental aspect of U.S. governance, ensuring that the military’s primary mission is to defend against foreign threats rather than to serve as a tool for domestic law enforcement.
