Thousands of National Guard soldiers have been deployed across Washington under President Donald Trump’s campaign to combat crime and improve public safety in the U.S. capital.
Yet a Reuters review of criminal court records suggests that the troops have played only a limited role in fighting serious crime.
Around 4,500 soldiers are currently deployed in Washington, exceeding the city’s roughly 3,200 police officers. The deployment is also considerably expensive. The Trump administration previously estimated that the operation cost around $1.65 million a day before the number of troops was doubled this summer.
Reuters reviewed publicly available charging documents from Washington’s Superior Court and found 217 criminal cases in which police mentioned National Guard involvement. That represented only about 1.3% of criminal cases filed since the deployment began.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The findings raise a broader question about whether deploying military personnel on American streets is an effective crime-fighting strategy or primarily a highly visible demonstration of government authority.
Why Did Trump Deploy National Guard Troops?
Trump made combating crime in Washington a major political priority, presenting the deployment as part of a broader effort to restore order in the capital.
National Guard soldiers have subsequently become a regular presence around monuments, subway stations, tourist areas and entertainment districts.
The administration argues that the increased security presence has helped reduce crime and improve the quality of life in Washington.
White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said Trump’s efforts had driven down crime and improved the city.
However, establishing how much of that improvement can actually be attributed to the National Guard is considerably more difficult.
Washington has simultaneously received hundreds of additional federal agents who have largely performed functions similar to local police.
Crime trends have also changed in other American cities that did not receive comparable military deployments.
How Often Are Soldiers Actually Fighting Crime?
Reuters found that National Guard soldiers were involved in relatively few criminal cases.
Of the 217 cases in which police mentioned the National Guard, soldiers independently stopped suspects in 62 cases.
In another 43 cases, they assisted police officers with arrests.
Many of these incidents involved relatively minor offences, including shoplifting and fare evasion.
In October, soldiers reportedly chased a man accused of taking two slices of pizza after offering only $2 in payment.
Other incidents involved a man who allegedly threw a rock at a bus, someone accused of stealing two beef jerky sticks and a woman accused of drinking a bottle of root beer without paying.
The cases demonstrate that soldiers are encountering crime, but they also raise questions about whether deploying thousands of military personnel is proportionate to the problems they are being asked to address.
What Are National Guard Soldiers Legally Allowed to Do?
The soldiers have been deputized as U.S. Marshals, but their law enforcement powers remain limited.
They can detain people suspected of crimes, but formal arrests generally have to be carried out by police.
The Defense Department describes their activities as “presence patrols,” meaning their primary purpose is to provide a visible security presence intended to deter criminal activity.
That distinction is important.
The deployment is not equivalent to placing thousands of additional police officers on Washington’s streets.
Instead, soldiers are primarily intended to provide visibility, deterrence and assistance to local law enforcement.
Are Soldiers Being Deployed in High-Crime Areas?
Reuters’ analysis raises another concern.
The soldiers appear to be disproportionately involved in incidents occurring in wealthier and safer parts of Washington.
The records reviewed by Reuters show National Guard involvement was more common in areas with higher incomes, higher levels of college education and larger white populations.
Most of the arrests involving soldiers occurred near the city’s core or around subway stations.
By contrast, Reuters found no references in court records to soldiers carrying out law enforcement activities in neighbourhoods where around 82% of Washington’s murders occurred over the previous five years.
That does not prove that soldiers never patrol those communities. Their deployment locations can change, and soldiers may be present without becoming involved in a police incident.
Nevertheless, the court records suggest that the deployment has not been concentrated in the areas where Washington has historically experienced its most serious violent crime.
What Happens When Soldiers Witness Serious Incidents?
The limited role of soldiers becomes particularly significant when they encounter serious emergencies.
In one case, National Guard soldiers found Keon Jones unresponsive after a fight near Washington’s waterfront.
The soldiers called emergency services but reportedly believed Jones was intoxicated. Police later discovered that he had suffered a severe stabbing.
Jones died in hospital roughly two hours later.
His aunt, Evelyn Jones, questioned whether the soldiers could have done more.
The incident highlights a fundamental issue with using military personnel for civilian policing: soldiers may be physically present but may not have the training, authority or experience required to respond effectively to complex criminal emergencies.
Soldiers Have Also Become Victims
The deployment has not made National Guard personnel immune from the dangers they were sent to address.
Reuters found 62 cases in which people were charged with pushing, punching or threatening soldiers.
Nine people were accused of spitting on them.
In one case, a man allegedly attempted to grab a soldier’s pistol during an arrest over stolen baseball caps at a subway station.
Another individual was charged after allegedly threatening soldiers with a bazooka.
The dangers became particularly clear last year when two West Virginia National Guard soldiers were shot near the White House, killing one of them.
The deployment has therefore created a situation in which soldiers are simultaneously acting as a security presence and becoming targets themselves.
Has Crime Actually Fallen in Washington?
Washington has recorded a decline in homicides for three consecutive years.
The Trump administration points to this trend as evidence that its policies are working.
But the relationship between the deployment and the reduction in crime is difficult to establish.
Homicides have also declined in American cities that did not receive National Guard deployments or comparable increases in federal law enforcement.
Meanwhile, total violent crime in Washington, including serious assaults, robberies and sex offences, was marginally higher between January and mid-August than during the same period a year earlier.
A study by the nonpartisan Niskanen Center found that the deployment was associated with a reduction in vehicle thefts but found no significant effect on violent crime.
That suggests the troops may have had an impact on certain forms of property crime while having a much more limited effect on serious violence.
Is the National Guard an Effective Crime-Fighting Tool?
Supporters argue that visibility itself can deter criminal activity.
Charles Stimson of the conservative Heritage Foundation told Reuters that people modify their behaviour when they see law enforcement and argued that removing the National Guard could lead to an increase in crime.
The logic is straightforward: a visible security presence can discourage people from committing offences because they believe they are more likely to be caught.
But critics argue that deterrence is not enough to justify the cost and scale of the deployment.
Former National Guard Bureau deputy commander Gen. Randy Manner said soldiers are not trained primarily for civilian policing and argued that the government could instead invest in additional police officers.
The difference is important because policing requires specialized skills in investigation, de-escalation, evidence collection and community engagement that military personnel may not possess to the same degree.
Why Does the Deployment Matter Beyond Washington?
The Washington operation is significant because it could establish a precedent for the use of military forces in everyday American policing.
The United States has historically used the National Guard for emergencies such as natural disasters, major public events and periods of severe civil unrest.
Using thousands of soldiers for routine crime prevention represents a considerably broader application of military personnel inside an American city.
Trump has already authorized smaller National Guard deployments in Memphis and New Orleans and has discussed sending troops to other cities.
That makes Washington a potential model for how future administrations could respond to urban crime.
Analysis: Is Military Presence Being Confused With Effective Policing?
The Reuters findings reveal an important distinction between visibility and effectiveness.
Thousands of soldiers on Washington’s streets create an unmistakable impression of government action. They are highly visible, heavily equipped and concentrated in prominent public spaces.
But visibility does not necessarily translate into reductions in violent crime.
The available evidence suggests that the deployment has been involved in relatively few criminal cases and has had limited measurable effects on serious violence. Where soldiers have intervened, many cases have involved relatively minor offences.
The geographic pattern is also significant.
If troops are disproportionately encountering crime in wealthier, safer and more heavily visited parts of Washington while having little documented involvement in the neighbourhoods responsible for most of the city’s murders, their deployment may be serving more as a symbol of security than a targeted response to the city’s most serious criminal threats.
That does not mean the soldiers have achieved nothing. Their presence may deter some offences, assist police and provide additional manpower in busy areas. But those benefits have to be weighed against the financial and institutional costs of using military personnel for a task traditionally handled by civilian police.
The broader question is therefore not whether National Guard soldiers can stop individual crimes. Clearly, they sometimes can.
The question is whether thousands of soldiers represent the most effective way to reduce serious crime in American cities.
So far, the evidence presented by Reuters provides little indication that they do.
Washington’s experience suggests that a large military presence can create the appearance of a city under tighter control without necessarily addressing the neighbourhoods, social conditions and policing challenges responsible for its most serious violence.
With information from Reuters.
