Pentagon Draws Up Plans To Send Troops to American Cities
The Trump administration is considering plans for a "Reaction Force" of National Guard troops to deploy quickly to American cities with signs of civil unrest.

The Trump administration, which on Monday deployed the D.C. National Guard to address crime in the nation's capital, is reportedly gearing up to deploy more troops in American cities.
Pentagon plans leaked to The Washington Post detail plans by the Trump administration, time-stamped in late July and early August, for a "Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force" of 600-troop National Guard units. These National Guard units, two 300-troop groups stationed at bases in Alabama and Arizona, would be ready to deploy within an hour to U.S. cities "facing protests or other unrest."
The quick-reaction teams would be on task for 90 days "to limit burnout," according to the Post. The plan involves rotating Army and Air Force National Guard units from several states, including Maryland, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Tennessee.
Cost projections indicate that the mission could amount to "hundreds of millions of dollars." However, the earliest this program could be funded through the Pentagon's budget is FY 2027. The Post's report also mentions that it is currently uncertain whether the proposal has been presented to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The National Guard Bureau referred Reason to the Defense Department for comment.
In response to Reason, a Defense Department official stated, "The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe. We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise."
Titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code give the president the authority to mobilize National Guard troops for federal missions. Title 10 allows forces to support law enforcement without performing arrests or investigations. Under Title 32, the state or territory governor retains control of the National Guard; however, their duties are federally funded and regulated, which provides guardsmen more latitude in law enforcement missions.
The proposal leaked to the Post would allow the president to mobilize the National Guard under Title 32 in states experiencing civil unrest, but acknowledges "the potential for political friction should that state's governor refuse to work with the Pentagon."
Laura Dickinson, law professor at George Washington University Law School, tells Reason there's a "strong legal argument that they couldn't in this status be sent to a state without the consent of that state's governor." In response to the president's actions in Washington, D.C., Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore has already said that he would "not authorize" National Guard forces in Maryland.
"This proposal fits into a larger pattern that we're seeing in which the administration is seeking to use the National Guard and the military to perform direct law enforcement functions or to act in support of law enforcement when there doesn't seem to be a real emergency or crisis," Dickinson adds.
The new Pentagon plan mirrors an effort by the first Trump administration to utilize the National Guard to quell political protests. Before the 2020 election, the administration had 600 Guard troops prepared in Arizona and Alabama in anticipation of political violence.
"This is Donald Trump's attempt to create his own de facto Praetorian Guard," Patrick Eddington, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason.
"It's worth reflecting that such actions by the British Crown are what started the American Revolution," he adds. "These acts by the Trump regime have nothing to do with crime and everything to do with armed, coercive political intimidation and repression."
The state of California is currently suing the Trump administration for deploying 700 Marines and 4,000 of the state's National Guard to the city of Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids taking place in the city in June.
The Trump administration has openly and unconventionally deployed federal law enforcement and the military to achieve its objectives. While it's unclear if or when this will happen, the Pentagon's plan, if implemented, would be yet another encroachment on federalism from the Trump administration.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is bad. Outside of protecting actual federal infrastructure there, let the urban inmates burn their cities.
Trump has ever declared fake national emergencies in order to activate unconstitutional powers. So there's nothing to worry about. This will never be abused.
I wonder if he will mandate “vaccines “?
He just wants to save lives.
What do you have against safety?
Yeah, if it "saves one life..."
Up up down down left right left right b a
If it saves just 30 lives
Yet, Sarc decided to celebrate losing at least one life on January 6, 2021.
Nothing to see here. Move along now.
Thanks Maddow.
First thought: That is a left wing picture, all the guns are pointed at southern states.
Flying Old Glory to boot; people from my [deep South] part of the country will most certainly be triggered by this. We know how THAT played out.
Not only that, but it looks like a couple of those guys are in Canada and one might be in Mexico. Is there no limit to Trump's ambition?
Laura Dickinson, law professor at George Washington University Law School, tells Reason there's a "strong legal argument that they couldn't in this status be sent to a state without the consent of that state's governor."
Orval Faubus holding on line 2 - -
Whose Orville Faubulus?
The first Sith Lord - - - - - - -
Faubus was openly defying a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the federal constitution, which is binding on Arkansas via the 14th Amendment. Trump has no such rationale and doesn't even pretend he does. That's the strong legal argument.
So, Hickamore, why wasn't Horace Mann High School chosen to add white students to a majority black high school?
Why didn't the white elites choose to integrate Hall High School, the new rich white high school at the time?
Why did they specifically choose the poor white high school to integrate?
It was Little Rock Central where the black students attempted to enroll. Faubus called out the National Guard to prevent this. This is when Eisenhower, in response, federalized the Guard. Not sure what your point may be, but you're changing the subject. The subject is Trump has no legal rationale for what he's doing. Or had you forgotten?
Yes, it was, but the school district decided to integrate that particular school and not all three high schools. You might want to look more into the history of the South and its caste system between the 1860s and 1960s before you put your foot in your mouth again.
I no longer care what happens to people living in big cities. If the people of the big cities don't like being occupied by Federal troops, let them arm themselves and fight back. The current situation in America is best described as "low intensity civil war" - similar to the low intensity civil war that gradually escalated during the ten years in New England leading up to the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775. It is not unusual for people to only be able to identify incipient civil wars in retrospect, so this should not surprise anyone reading this today. Libertarians have no dog in this fight since both sides have done massive damage to the Constitution and constitutional limits on federal scope and power over the centuries, so we should keep our powder dry, sit on the sidelines, and only react in self defense to violent encroachments by either side.
"Then they came for the city dwellers, and I said nothing because fuck them they deserve it."
No, your actual words were “fuck those people”.
So, uh, "fuck those people", right, Sarc?
I recall that term being used during rioting [Miami, I believe 1980/82]; the thought expressed by a military authority was that segments of our population could never be fully incorporated into larger society and that they would always be at some level of burn, and that rapid deployment forces could be used to quell their uprisings as necessary.
Prescient, that guy.
Both sides, LOL.
You are a fascist shit.
You are a retarded shit.
We'll accept the charge of "retarded" when you challenge us to an IQ test and prove it. Pending that, you might try learning the meaning of words.
Prove yours first, dimwit.
Awww, Molly has a white knight.
Remember when Eisenhauer sent the 101st Airborne to Littlerock High because the KKK threatened to shoot up the place?
Remember when Trump sent the artillery and the bombers because some parents decided to take their 12-year-old kid with them to watch a drag queen show?
Oh, wait, that's tomorrow, shit hasn't happened YET! So SNOT to worry... Yet!
If the KKK threatened to shoot up the place today? Shoot, Trump would recruit the KKK shooters to work for ICE!!!
A timely, and apt, reminder, thank you. But then the NYT et al were all for it, as they would be today if the cause was "just." If the National Guard were federalized and dispatched to certain locations in order to quell "insurrectionists," for example.
Yes, I believe the views would change if some rampaging right wing militia - which is always hovering in prog wet dreams - were rioting and looting in Albany or Boston or Annapolis.
Hard to remember stuff that never happened.
Dense much?
It's a simple plan: Deploy troops at the slightest provocation. Create more provocation. Stir up trouble (add brown shirts) and then send in more troops when the stupids react. Continue to stir the pot and propagandize/exaggerate violence until you can declare a giant emergency and declare military dictatorship with constant occupation in any places where anyone is likely to protest.
That's crazy talk! There's no historical precedent for that! Besides, even if you're right it's ok because "the left" did it first!!!11!eleven!!!
Your trolls have become worse than boring.
I'd like to say, "Don't say that shit and give Trump any ideas", butt, sad to say, Trump already HAS these ideas! In spades from Hades!
Been reading Mein Kampf, have you?
Or recent history of blue cities.
But he should be reading about Italy; they were the ones that used black shirts and street violence to pave the way - - - - - -
"Deploy troops at the slightest provocation."
So you weren't paying attention to what was going on in LA before the troops showed up. Got it.
So you weren't paying attention to what is going on right now. Trump and His Trumpaloos and ICE BrownShits are raiding all of the BLUE cities and states! Make all of the libs cry; ruin their economies by taking away many of their hard workers! THAT will show them to vote "Team D"! Do SNOT raid the farmers and THEIR hard workers in the RED states, 'cause they (farmers) vote for MEEEEE!!!
https://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/heres-how-ice-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-arrests-differ-between-red-and-blue-states-cincinnati-sanctuary-policies-local-enforcement-laws-president-united-american-immigration-officials-bill-reconciliation-budget-detentions-administration Here's how ICE arrests differ between red and blue states, according to data From there, “In Republican-leaning states, 59% of ICE arrests occur in prisons and jails. Conversely, in Democratic-leaning states, ICE is more likely to arrest immigrants from the community, with 70% of arrests taking place at worksites, streets, and during mass roundups.”
Or Seattle. Or Portland. Or st louis....
Less Lester, not Mo Lester
So glad it can't happen here.
/sarc
Yes. Ignore the years of violence and destruction in these inner cities. Claim it is solely trumps provocation. The leftist way.
Since when is "the years of violence and destruction in these inner cities" the job of a federalized National Guard? To say there's a problem somewhere is not to legalize dispatching of a federalized armed force to deal with it. How about spending the federal $ on local police instead? We all know why not. Trump cares nothing about inner-city crime; he cares about making Shows of Force in places that don't vote for him.
Cite?
drawing up plans is Pentagon's job.
Yes. It's just too bad that they don't do it very well.
Different day, usual morons here.
Don't worry, I'm sure the Oath Keepers, who swore to disobey unconstitutional orders, will resist and save democracy.
That's the group with a bunch of paid FBI informants right?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/11/14/kpst-n14.html
Lol.
Anybody read gk Chestetons the man who was Thursday?
Glowies all the way down.
Trump, Hag-Smith, and their ICE-people in Brown-Shits and Black-Shits and masks will save democracy! Just TRUST in them!
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=youtube+jungle+book+kaa+snake&mid=B406B95FD3DBCCADD90DB406B95FD3DBCCADD90D&mmscn=stvo&FORM=VIRE
???? Kaa Hypnotizes Mowgli! | Jungle Book | Disney Kids
Sounds like a what-if article. Slow news day?
No. The 'Feds' do not have crime prevention authority without permission of the State. The Union Government needs to stick to National matters.
This is the key wording buried in the story.
However, the earliest this program could be funded through the Pentagon's budget is FY 2027. The Post's report also mentions that it is currently uncertain whether the proposal has been presented to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
So... not presented to Hegseth. Leaked to the Post. Future year possible actions. Totally not a deep state creation.
Reason falls for it every time.
On top of that. These quick strike forces already exist in the national guard. It doesn't take long to deploy those groups as seen in LA. Which makes this seem like even more bullshit. We are supposed to believe there is some new different hidden plan than what has already been done.
>>Reason falls for it every time.
you misspelled "promotes"
For "Leaked to the Post" I read "made up by the Post".
The latter is actually more likely.
God this timeline sucks.
I've said this before and I will say it again for this article. The Constitution no longer matters. Reason writers will not be allowed to get away with holding Trump accountable to follow the letter of the law when he is undoing past unconstitutional actions by previous administrations. On the other hand, I continue to object to his continuing to violate the Constitution in new ways. Unfortunately, he seems to have abandoned his promise to eliminate unconstitutional departments, regulations, employees and spending and has shifted all of his actions towards using these unconstitutional departments and officials to perpetrate new violations.
would be yet another encroachment on federalism from the Trump administration.
One might argue said federalism has already been encroached on, and sending the guard to do the job the Democrats refuse to is the only way to restore it.
One might argue that if one did not mind being wrong.
One might argue that one who considers such a proposition to be wrong is one who equates federalism with anarchy.
One might so argue, but not in a court of law, which is where questions of executive overreach are determined. Here the overreach is transparently pretextual. It's not about crime in cities that Trump couldn't find on a map; it's about shows of force in places that don't vote for him.
Unfortunately abuse of power is already around the world while the courts are still pulling their boots on. Generations of politicians have shown Trump how it's done: do whatever the hell you want to do so many times in so many places that your opposition can't possibly keep up filing court actions. Then, when your mission has been irretrievably accomplished, wait for the courts to sort of maybe overrule you. Meanwhile, launch more abuses of power. Repeat as needed.
That's some twisted logic. The answer to too much government is much more government to force less government?
Anybody read gk Chestetons the man who was Thursday?
No, no one has ever read G.K. Chesterton's "The Man Who Was Thursday." Why do you ask?
This is fascism. Period. MAGAs are destroying our democracy.
A plan, not deployed, not approved, and not presented to even the sec of defense is fascism?
Its a fascist plan. The state of its implementation has no bearing on its content.
Not being obtuse here. I know why Molly would call it fascist (basically anyone right of Obama is a fascist), but I’m interested how you think it meets the definition.
The federal government has too much influence already. Allowing it to deploy troops on native soil to anywhere it feels there is an "emergency" is too much. I can imagine a scenario where an "emergency" is declared to "protect" voters at the polls from "supporting terrorism." A remote possibility, but not unfathomable when the feds are drawing up plans like this.
"Crime control = Fascism!", the [Na]tional So[zi]alist fascists will tout.
...because Self-Projection is all they've got.
Well. Except a fundamental misunderstanding that the USA is NOT just a '[WE] Identify-as mob RULES!' 'democracy'.
If only you knew what fascism really was, Dr. Retard. I'd recommend some books, but they lack any pictures.