Trump right to call in troops when big cities falter | Bill O’Brien

We are fortunate to have a president now who is willing to act lawfully within constitutional bounds to protect the innocent and restore peace in large cities such as Washington, D.C., where federal authority is at its zenith.

President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in the nation's capital and his federalizing of the city's police force are not overreach. Those actions are in keeping with the Founders' promise of domestic tranquility. That promise is not theoretical — it’s textual and enduring.

Abraham Lincoln, for example, deployed federal troops fresh from the battlefield at Gettysburg to suppress New York City draft riots.

Two constitutional provisions are especially relevant. First, the guarantee clause in Article IV, Section 4 obligates the United States to protect states “against … domestic violence” — an explicit recognition that federal power may be necessary to restore order. Second, for the nation’s capital, Congress holds “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,” and the president directly commands the Washington, D.C., National Guard, authority long delegated through the Department of Defense.

These statements of federal authority are not abstractions. They are structural features of our constitutional design, and understanding them is crucial.

Federal involvement is not categorically “militarized policing.” The Posse Comitatus Act limits the use of federal troops in civilian law enforcement. Still, Congress created exceptions, most notably the Insurrection Act, precisely for moments when ordinary mechanisms break down.

Narrow, lawful federal support to protect federal functions, reinforce overwhelmed federal and state law enforcement agencies, or stabilize a spiraling situation is not only permissible. In Washington, it is a federal responsibility.

In cities plagued by rampant violent crime, citizens shouldn't have to “wait it out” because of a theory that only a faltering local police force or city hall should respond. Objections to federal help are typically nothing more than theoretical: process worries, slippery-slope fears or rhetoric about “optics.”

Our largest cities suffer from failed governance. They have been defunded and depleted of policing. Local prosecutors have eroded accountability.

Many urban residents have had to endure murder, rape, armed robbery and violence that no American should have to tolerate.

The FBI reports that violent crime fell 4.5% in 2024, to 359 victims per 100,000. National figures mask enormous concentration: A tiny set of jurisdictions drives a disproportionate share of serious violence. A

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, the worst 2% of counties account for half of all murders. So excluding the most violent cities would push national rates much lower. Our “national” rate is inflated by a handful of urban hot spots where local law enforcement systems have failed.

Critics of federal forces being deployed in major cities cite the 1970 killing of students at Kent State in Ohio as a reason to keep troops out. But that was a failure of command. The failure of command leading to the 1968 My Lai Massacre in Vietnam should not dictate that we never use our military at all.

The safest, most resilient communities are built from the ground up. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is our largest cities being torn apart from the top down. We are fortunate that the federal government is willing and able to put a stop to that.