Title: The National Guard on Trump's Standby

[MUSIC]

Brigid: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. I'm Brigid Bergin from the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, sitting in for Brian today. President Trump has directed the National Guard to take on a new role in American cities. In Washington, more than 2,000 Guard members are already patrolling, and now the Pentagon has authorized them to carry weapons on those patrols. The president's order also called for a rapid response force, hundreds of troops who could be sent anywhere in the country within an hour. He's said out loud that Chicago may be next, and maybe New York.

President Trump: I think Chicago will be our next, and then we'll help with New York.

Brigid: How unusual is this? What does the law allow a president to do when governors and mayors say no? What does it mean for the line between civilian policing and the military when troops are posted at subway stations and on city streets? Dan Lamothe, US military and Pentagon reporter at The Washington Post, is on this story, and he joins us now. Dan, welcome to WNYC.

Dan: Sure. Thank you.

Brigid: Listeners, we can take your calls about President Trump's use of the National Guard. If you're in Washington, DC, help us report this story, or if you've seen the National Guard deployed in your city at times of protest or during emergencies, how do you feel about the prospect that those troops might be coming to patrol a street near you, according to the president? Your questions are also welcome for our guest, Dan Lamothe, US military and Pentagon reporter at The Washington Post. You can call or text us at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. Dan, let's start with what's new here. What exactly does this order change about the National Guard's mission inside the United States?

Dan: The short answer is the executive order that was issued this week. It calls for the setting up of a couple of different units, one that could deploy on short order to various parts of the country if there's unrest, if there's a riot, some sort of disturbance that, in theory, should outpace whatever the local authorities can do. That would be rare, I think, would be the first answer. In addition to that, yes, we're watching what's playing out in Washington, DC. We're at last check at about 2,200 National Guard members.

I think the rhetoric and the reality of what they're doing don't necessarily match all the time. They're largely doing presence-type patrols. They're stationed in a lot of areas, like in the subway and metro stations. As of today, they were actually out picking up trash in the parks. I think the president wants this to look strong, and at the same time, I think the actual commanders are trying to make themselves useful in ways you wouldn't necessarily expect, that wouldn't be very inflammatory.

Brigid: You mentioned presence patrols. I think that means essentially just they want them to appear visible in some of these high-profile areas. Also, we saw a story from your colleague, Washington Post reporter Tara Copp, this morning about how some members of the Guard are being given sanitation and landscaping duties, I think she also reported. How unusual is that?

Dan: Very unusual. I think a couple of things are going on here. I think one, the president wanted the Guard, the Guard is now in duty, but then it's like, "What do you do with the Guard?" It's the opposite of what you would necessarily expect, which is that there's a mission, you identify the number of people for the mission, and then you start carrying out the mission. In this case, it seemed more like I want the Guard, and now they're looking for ways to make the Guard useful.

Brigid: We have a listener who texts, "I'm a military historian at New York University. Aside from the constitutional issue, which is what many are focused on, there will be massive institutional costs. The National Guard and its predecessors, state militias, have been heavily damaged in reputation because of involvement in strike breaking and later law and order operations in Vietnam. After 2025, the National Guard is going to face a major identity crisis. Is it a police force after all?" Dan, any reaction to that?

Dan: Yes. I think if you go back years, the incident that a lot of people point to is the shooting at Kent State, where the National Guard opened fire and a couple of students were killed. That is something that the National Guard and the US military writ large has tried to walk back from, to be thoughtful about where you put US troops into play. In this case, the Pentagon, they're going to carry out lawful orders that they receive, and I think in unique, specific instances, the Guard can be deployed.

The Washington, DC instance is different than any other location we've talked about. That's because it is a federal protectorate. The president does have broad control over how that area is managed. He can deploy the National Guard more or less, acting in a role almost as a governor would. He can pull in the National Guard. In this case, he deployed the DC National Guard and then decided that wasn't enough and actually got several other Republican governors to send some of their National Guard as well to Washington, DC. That's how we get to a relatively large number.

Brigid: Dan, just to clarify the point you were making, another listener texted, "I'm curious about whether or not a governor needs to approve the deployment of the National Guard. I realize that DC is not a state, so this doesn't technically count. For instance, if Kathy Hochul, governor of New York, says no, does that stick? She was the one to authorize their deployment in the subway last year for similar reasons."

Dan: It gets complicated. The short answer is it's legally contested to this day. In California in June, there were a number of ICE operations. In a handful of instances, you saw protests turn to some degree violent, you saw pieces of concrete thrown at ICE agents. President Trump reached for that and said, "I want to send the National Guard to California." He did so without the consent of Governor Newsom. Governor Newsom sued. His team sued. That led to a court battle that is still not fully resolved.

There actually was a trial in the middle of August, and the judge is expected to come back with a ruling on whether or not that deployment was legal. With that said, that deployment occurred anyway. It was narrowly tailored to protecting federal buildings and federal personnel, which is to say basically serving as a bubble of security around ICE as ICE is carrying out their detentions. That obviously puts the National Guard into a very uncomfortable circumstance.

Brigid: Similarly, I mentioned already that the Guard that's been mobilized in Washington has been authorized to patrol with weapons. What is the significance of that shift?

Dan: It was a notable situation over the weekend. When they first sent the Guard, the Guard popped up, soft caps, no helmets, more or less in groups of three, five, six at a time. You saw them in a lot of high-traffic touristy type of areas. It seemed to be more or less, hey, we're here. They didn't seem to necessarily have a obvious major security role. They weren't involved, for instance, in some of the raids that ICE was carrying out in other parts of the city. Over the last couple of days, we have now started to see the Guard appear with, in some cases, pistols, in some cases, rifles.

It's not a surprise that they would probably decide that maybe the Guard also has some sort of risk to them in a relatively politically polarizing situation. I think really the question and the concern becomes, if somebody attacks or if somebody tries to get a rise out of a Guard member, how do they handle that? That's an individual situation. There are no doubt lots of conversations going on right now where commanders talking to younger Guard members are saying, "Hey, the eyes of America are on you, be professional, be courteous, be careful," more or less.

Brigid: I want to bring in some of our callers. Let's go to Darrell in the Bronx. Darrell identified himself as a veteran. You're on WNYC.

Darrell: Good morning. How are you doing?

Brigid: Great.

Darrell: Y'all hear me?

Brigid: Loud and clear.

Darrell: Big concern here. Number one, let's talk about Wimpsons. I fired M16. M16 round is not a bullet. You fire M16, it hits somebody, you're going to put significant damage to the body. Number two, National Guards or Reserves being called up are regular folks. That means they losing money from being called off from their job. It's like jury duty. That's why a lot of people don't want to go on jury duty because the pay is not the same when you go, but you get paid on jury duty from your jobs now.

The other thing is, it's a mental health issue. Why aren't they organizing people for mental health? You have many talented folks that are in the military that work in hospitals that deal with mental health. Why aren't they using that? Why aren't they making that assessment? Because this is not going to look good. I live in New York. I'm talking from New York. If they come here, it's not going to be easy. Just like you said, you have young folks who will try things. They will try you. All the Guard folks, they're not trained on that. They are regular workers who are coming from a regular working job. They're probably not working in health care, and they're probably working in some other sectors that's not dealing with that type of population.

Brigid: Darrell, thank you for raising a whole host of concerns that, I think, I'm seeing from other listeners in texts. You are certainly not alone. Dan, in terms of some of what Darrell raised there, in terms of the pay for some of these National Guard members, are they going to be losing out at time at their full-time jobs? Can you help us unpack some of what he was raising there?

Dan: He's not wrong that, for at least a percentage of the National Guard, they are going to lose money on this deal. They are paid based on their rank, and they are basically setting aside their day jobs. In some cases, their day jobs may pay less. In some cases, their day jobs may pay much more. The dynamics can vary there in terms of whether you're gaining or losing money. Certainly, a portion of these folks are going to be getting paid less. If these orders extend 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, however long they end up doing this role, there's a cumulative sort of deficit that some of these folks that would have made up more money are not going to see. Over time, this becomes increasingly a challenge for at least some portion of the Guard.

Brigid: Wow. You've reported that Trump wants a domestic civil disturbance quick reaction force, 600 Guard troops just on standby at all times. Has anything like that ever existed before?

Dan: Not on the National Guard side. This is something you typically see in a unit like the 82nd Airborne Division, where they have a portion of their force that rotates and takes a quick reaction role. Typically, that's being prepared for something that might pop up overseas. It's the fourth anniversary of the evacuation of Afghanistan this month, very trying circumstances. The 82nd Airborne was deployed on very short notice to that airport to deal with that crisis. That's the sort of the genesis for some sort of crisis response, that it's usually a discussion like that.

For the National Guard, it's a lot more legally complex, especially when you start talking about, hey, can I send a portion of, let's say for the sake of argument, the Arizona National Guard to Los Angeles? Without the governor's consent, that gets really challenging.

Brigid: Wow. If you are just joining us, you're listening to The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom. My guest is Dan Lamothe, US military and Pentagon reporter at The Washington Post. He's been reporting on President Trump's use of the National Guard and the new order that calls for a broader role for the National Guard in American cities. Danny, the president has declared a crime emergency in DC, but crime data shows violent crime there is actually down since 2023. We should be clear here that this really isn't about crime, right?

Dan: Yes. I think there's a very fair discussion happening here of what violence is occurring in American cities and how does that match or contradict what the president's saying. There was. Washington, DC, especially, and other cities as well have major safety concerns coming out of COVID. Murders were up, carjackings were up, and violent crime in general was all trending in the wrong direction.

Many cities, Washington, DC and Chicago and others among them, all have seen positive trend lines since then. There's still problems, there are still violence, murders are still occurring. The trend line, at least, is in the right direction. President Trump campaigned on the idea of cities being lawless, and I would submit that the statistics show one trend. He seems to be trying to carrying out on a campaign promise, even though the statistics no longer match what they did two, three years ago.

Brigid: Wow. Certainly, what we are hearing from the president so far is an intent to keep these troops in place for a while. Here's a bit of what he said just last Thursday.

President Trump: We're not playing games. We're going to make it safe, and we're going to then go on to other places, but we're going to stay here for a while. We want to make this absolutely perfect. It's our capital.

Brigid: Dan, we have a listener who wrote in a question, Sophie from Crown Heights. I have two questions. First, I'm wondering what is the cost of all of this to taxpayers? Second, is there any chance that the National Guard commanders could draw a red line where they don't obey the direction from President Trump?

Dan: On the cost question, that's something that we're actually trying to crunch ourselves, but it's certainly not nothing. It gets especially expensive when you start deploying National Guard from other areas to a different city. If I'm a member of the DC National Guard, I'm likely going home to my own bed at night. I'm still being paid. There is a cost there, but I'm at least not incurring all the costs that would go with food, hotel rooms, and so forth.

At this point, DC is now actually expanded to the point where we've got members of the West Virginia National Guard, the Mississippi National Guard. These are folks who are all going to be in hotel rooms, $150, $200 a night, whatever it ends up costing, seemingly with no end in sight. Yes, there is a cumulative cost to that, and that sets aside the personnel costs.

Brigid: Let's go to another caller. Let's bring in Tina from Harlem. Tina, you're on WNYC.

Tina: Good morning, Brigid. Thanks for taking my call. There are so many, many, many problems associated with this, which you guys are starting to unpack. The cost and talk about government waste, which is completely contradictory to this so-called getting rid of government waste. There are no problems that this is solving. Morale and just it just goes on and on and on. The governors are supposed to be in charge of deploying their National Guardsmen, but recently, Trump just created this edict that says that he has the right to make these National Guards from different states, like Illinois [unintelligible 00:17:42] Chicago, should he decide to do so. This is what I recently learned.

All of these things pale in comparison to the real plan insofar as I can see it, and that is that just like the previous text question about, are there powerful military leaders who would say no, and they're just not going to do it? He's already gotten rid of all the top commanders in the Air Force and in the Navy and in the Pentagon. Anybody who, as we know, doesn't do as they're told, they get fired. There's nothing to stop him.

What it's going to be used for in a year or two from now, when all of these things settle, probably even less than a year, is to quell all the protests that we the people are going to have against this strong-armed police state that he's putting into place. It's just going to be like Kent State, where the National Guard is there because of protesters and even peaceful protesters, as we saw in LA. This is just a glimmer. It's not an isolated case. It's a glimmer of the future, and it's going to be pervasive.

Brigid: Tina, thank you for your call and your perspective. I want to get a different perspective. Let's try Rayaz in Nassau County. You're on WNYC.

Rayaz: Oh, yes. Hi. Hello?

Brigid: Hello. You're on WNYC.

Rayaz: How are you? I was thinking about for safer cities for our country. I see a lot of crime on social media, people being pushed on the subway tracks, being beat. Even our finest police officers are getting hit on the face, on the head. Enough is enough. Time for help, I guess.

Brigid: It sounds like you support the idea of the National Guard. Is that right, Rayaz?

Rayaz: 100%, yes. It makes America safer. They serve in foreign countries to make those countries safer. Why not here in US, in major cities like in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, places like that, that people are going out of hand. I 100% support peaceful protests, but a lot of them are not. Most of them are not, because it goes out of hand and the police officers are shot in the hand and time for them to get some support.

Brigid: Rayaz, thank you for giving us another perspective. Dan, love to get your reaction to both of those callers.

Dan: I think, in some ways, that encapsulates the larger debate, which is that there are a lot of Americans who have faith and trust in the US military and are open to the idea that maybe they can help domestically as well in ways that they don't traditionally do. There are other people who have great concerns about this, and I think some of that comes based on people's personal experiences with the military. Do they know somebody that served? Do they think this is appropriate? I also think this is getting muddled a bit in that you have ICE agents in some cases wearing camouflage, in some cases wearing military style clothing who look pretty military. They have a different role than the National Guard here, but to a lot of people, it all looks the same.

Brigid: Dan, we've kind of touched on this a little bit about what are the role of governors? What are the roles of states that maybe are pushing back on President Trump? Governor JB Pritzker in Illinois has said flat out that deploying troops in Chicago would be unconstitutional. What are the legal grounds Trump is claiming that allows him to do it anyway?

Dan: I guess to level set a bit, there are several different ways that the National Guard is commonly deployed. A governor can order a deployment of a National Guard unit under state orders, which you commonly see after a tornado or a hurricane or something like that. That's very finite, certain number of days, usually in response to a crisis where you all of a sudden need more help than you have normally within the police and other first responders.

Another way is you can deploy them under what is known as Title 32, which is a part of federal law that allows the governor to authorize a deployment, but they get federal pay. The National Guard gets paid a little better, they get some federal benefits. It accumulates time towards the GI Bill. Generally, Guard members are happy to be deployed under Title 32 as opposed to state orders. It just works out better for them. However, President Trump, when he deployed the National Guard to California, that's probably the most recent example we have, that was an instance where the governor was against it. The mayor was against it.

He waited until there was some legal basis or at least legal argument with the limited violence that occurred against ICE there, and he sent them under Title 10, which is a different part of federal code that prohibits them from participating in law enforcement. You ended up with this kind of very narrowly tailored role where they were on the street protecting buildings and protecting ICE personnel, but not arresting. Title 32, again, when the governor deploys them, they can have a law enforcement role. We've seen that after Hurricane Katrina and other specific instances where the Guard was deployed with a mission that involved that.

The question I have, one of the things that I think will come up, especially if we see this in Chicago or other cities, is is President Trump attempting to have them do law enforcement? Is he attempting to have them just there, which I think gives him the imagery that he may be looking for, the idea of uniforms on the streets, even without a very specific mission, or in some case, potentially even a use? That gets back to the DC National Guard. We see them on the streets. They were shoveling mulch yesterday. That's not a traditional National Guard role, but it's what made sense in the eyes of commanders in the moment.

Brigid: I want to get one more caller in here. Let's go to Dan in Matawan, New Jersey. Dan, you're on WNYC.

Dan: Hi. Thanks for having me on.

Brigid: What do you have to say?

Dan: I was born and raised in DC. I grew up there, and I always took it we have a chip on our shoulder about having no representation in Congress. You mentioned, in passing, DC not being a state, but I never thought before about the implications of not having a governor because I never expected to have to stand up to the president in this way. My question is, do you feel like he's pulling this in DC because we don't have a state level of government? We don't have a governor, a strong figure, in that way to push back.

Dan: I think certainly he's doing it because it's more accessible to him in Washington, DC. He has expressed the desire and what he sees as a need for the National Guard in DC. I would submit it is also way easier and legal based on the parameters for him to do so in Washington as opposed to other cities. A couple of years back, five years back, after the murder of George Floyd, we saw protests, we saw violence in a number of cities. Washington, DC was among them. In that case, you ended up with the president kind of flirting with the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act, which is a code under which you can actually send active duty military to quell violence. At least that's the way it was conceived.

That is a red line for a lot of folks in the Pentagon. That is something that makes your skin crawl. They do not want to see the 82nd Airborne or infantry battalions from the Marines or something like that involved in this. The National Guard is a step in between. I think from the Pentagon perspective, they're trying to make sure this stays as a National Guard thing if the president is going to go in this direction. Meanwhile, governors are going to sue and protest and do whatever they can to even rein it in from there.

Brigid: Dan, are you hearing anything from senior military leaders? How are they feeling about being asked to police US streets?

Dan: They're obviously very careful with their words, particularly the ones that are still in the rolls in more candid conversations, and this often comes with recent retirees. Yes, concerns have been raised. Some of these officers do have issue with it. I think they're trying to parse out what's legal versus what's uncomfortable. Those are decisions that I don't think they themselves can make. They're relying on their own lawyers.

A lot of times, the pushback comes in ways of, "Hey, your intent appears to be X. We can do this legally." You basically offer up options that would fall within how you assess legally you can do the mission. You meet the president's desires, and you try to keep the military out of a constitutional crisis in the process.

Brigid: Dan, we've seen polls that show a large majority of DC residents oppose this deployment. Does public opinion factor into these decisions at all?

Dan: In the short term, I don't think so. I think the president is often working off his vision, his worldview. I think we've seen on many issues that President Trump, over time, will assess how this is playing out on television, how this is playing out in conversations he's had. I think the way this practically works out over the next several weeks does factor in into what he's doing. I think that we're all waiting to see how that plays out. I don't know there's really a way to assess that now.

Yes, a lot of people in Washington, DC are opposed to this. There are also a lot of people in Washington, DC that would love to see more police, like community policing, in the city. I guess the question is, "All right. You didn't have as many cops as you wanted. This is what you're getting. Is this something that you're comfortable with?" I think the actual practicality of, how did it work? What is the guard doing? Is there some sort of accident? Is there some sort of situation that now changes public opinion?

We had a traffic accident in the city last week where an armored vehicle ran a red light. It was an accident. Ran a red light, hit an SUV, and you ended up with a hospitalized driver of that civilian SUV. There wasn't a fatality, but if there had been, those are the kinds of things where you're assessing, how does this change the public opinion?

Brigid: Sure. Dan, just in our final question, obviously, we are a show based here in New York City. We have heard so far from Governor Kathy Hochul, who said she has spoken to the president about this and has said the Guard is not needed here. Our New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch spoke with Attorney General Pam Bondi similar conversation, saying National Guard is not needed here. This is, in the reporting, presented as a model for other cities, potentially next Chicago, maybe New York. From what you know so far, how far along are those discussions based on your reporting?

Dan: One of the points I wanted to make with this story is that my sources were telling me this wasn't just the president musing in front of a microphone or shooting from the hip in front of the microphone. There's actual process to this. There was active military planning for this. They seem to zero in on Chicago even prior to his comments. Those same sources told me that this is a multi-city discussion. It has been for some time, and I think we're waiting to see what that means.

Is this something that he's serious about in all locations at once? That would be a major undertaking for the National Guard, expensive, trying, and exhausting, especially over time. If he's going to do one city at a time, does that give you the television programming you might be looking for, and you can make the point you're looking for? I think we're all waiting to see what he's actually thinking in that regard.

Brigid: Much more to watch, and we will, I'm sure, be talking again. My guest was Dan Lamoth, US military and Pentagon reporter at The Washington Post. Dan, thanks so much for joining me this morning.

Dan: Sure. Thanks very much.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.