“The question is … why the military would be deployed in an American city to police Americans,” said D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. That is the right question. Flooding our streets with soldiers doesn’t make communities safer; it inflames tensions and erodes public trust. It is time to send the National Guard home, along with the other federal law enforcement agents Trump deployed to the nation’s capital, and let local police do their jobs.
Cities have a fundamental responsibility to provide police and fire protection for their residents. That reflects the principle of home rule — the long-standing idea that localities should be allowed to govern themselves without inordinate state or federal interference. Once a bipartisan value, this principle is now under attack by the Trump administration’s decision to deploy the National Guard and other federal forces to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., with threats to intervene elsewhere. Ironically, Trump is using, along with other statutes, the D.C. Home Rule Act to justify his actions.
When I served on the Atlanta City Council a couple decades ago, I pushed the body to leverage City Hall for economic and community development. The more I urged us to go beyond our charter-mandated duties — public safety, public works, planning and zoning — the more conservatives pushed back. They argued that we should focus only on the basics of governance. Yet today, conservative voices are strangely silent — or worse, supportive — as the president tramples local authority.
Let’s be clear: This is political theater. It risks escalating into violence and further damaging the already fragile trust between law enforcement and the community. If the president’s deployment actually improved public safety, perhaps there would be a debate to be had. But the facts tell us otherwise. Violent crime in D.C. was down 35 percent in 2024 compared to the previous year — a 30-year low and one that came without soldiers occupying its streets.
The same story plays out across the country. Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Miami, New York and other cities have reduced crime without militarization. Instead, they relied on proven, evidence-based strategies such as focused deterrence policing, crime prevention through environmental design and a range of other non-law-enforcement approaches.
In Baltimore, for example, pairing focused policing with job training and mental health support has helped bring homicides down to a 50-year low. Back in the 1990s, the Boston Gun Project’s Operation Ceasefire cut youth homicides dramatically — up to 63 percent by some accounts.
Mentorship, violence interruption and trust-building programs deliver real results. Columbus, Ohio, saw a 41 percent drop in violent crime in the first half of last year, a result of programs including mentorship initiatives and community-police partnerships. Atlanta invests in midnight basketball and intergenerational recreation through its Police Athletic League partnership. Atlanta officials credit those initiatives and others with helping to bring down homicides for three consecutive years, including a 32 percent decrease in the past year.
What this data makes clear is that cities that invest in education, workforce development, parks and recreation, and other community-focused initiatives, along with data-driven policing strategies that have proven effective, do more to combat crime than those that talk about getting tough on criminals by simply locking more of them up. It’s puzzling that after all these years of fighting crime that some elected officials still believe that intimidation and stoking fear is the best path to making our communities safer.
After decades of research and lived experience, we know what works. Public officials — including the president — should be focused on funding and expanding these proven solutions, not staging dangerous displays of force. That doesn’t reduce crime; it undermines local democracy, erodes trust and risks lives.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
Related Articles
