National Guard Troops Never Should Have Been in D.C.—And More Troops Won’t Fix the Problem

The shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., is a grim reminder of the consequences of political decisions that place service members into volatile civilian environments without clear necessity, mandate, or mission. The violence itself is appalling and absolutely unacceptable. But the deeper issue goes beyond this single incident: these troops never should have been in the nation’s capital in the first place.

The deployment—shaped and encouraged by figures like former President Donald Trump, Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth, and West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey—created an avoidable situation. Their rhetoric and policy pressure fostered a climate in which military personnel were used as political symbols rather than as instruments of genuine security. That choice not only endangered civilians; it endangered the very troops officials claimed to support.

A Misuse of Military Presence

The National Guard is designed to respond to natural disasters, support local governments in emergencies, and protect infrastructure during crises—not to serve as a standing force in politically charged urban environments. Deploying them to D.C. without a clearly defined threat or operational structure was a miscalculation from the start.

The presence of troops may create an illusion of control, but it does little to address the underlying issues that fuel instability or violence. In many cases, it heightens tensions rather than diffusing them. History consistently shows that militarizing civic space is a poor substitute for policy, diplomacy, and competent governance.

Political Leaders Failed These Troops

When elected officials or political influencers push for military deployments without assessing risk, necessity, or the potential for escalation, they fail both the public and the service members under their command. The Guard troops placed in D.C. were not equipped—either in purpose or in authority—to handle the complex social environment they were thrust into.

Leaders who call for more troops in response to a tragedy like this are repeating the same error: treating force as a default solution rather than a last resort.

More Troops Is Not the Answer

Calls to increase the military presence in D.C. fundamentally misdiagnose the issue. The problem is not that there were too few troops. The problem is that troops were there at all.

Real security comes from:

• Clear, evidence-based threat assessments

• Transparent decision-making about when and why military forces are deployed

• Investment in policing reforms, de-escalation, and community safety strategies

• Avoiding the politicization of military personnel

Increasing the number of troops would only raise the risk of more escalation, more confusion, and more unnecessary confrontations.

A Tragedy With Clear Lessons

The shooting of these two National Guard members is heartbreaking—but it is also instructive. It underscores the need to rethink how political leaders use military resources and how quickly some turn to force when faced with complex civic challenges.

Tonight, publications like Law Dork are poised to further unpack the legal, constitutional, and political failures that led to this moment. Their work is an important reminder: accountability matters, and decisions about deploying troops must be grounded in law, policy, and respect—not political theater.