National Guard Shooting Heightens Concerns Over Federal Deployments
The shooting of two National Guard members near the White House on Wednesday stunned much of the nation — yet some within the Guard say they saw it coming.
A California National Guard soldier, who served in Los Angeles during the summer’s immigration crackdown, told The New York Times he expected something like this to happen. Speaking anonymously, he said the mission had left troops worried about either harming civilians or becoming targets themselves.
This concern, echoed by several other Guard members, was already known to commanders in Washington, D.C. According to police, the two West Virginia Guard members were critically wounded around 2:15 p.m. by a lone gunman.
Internal Memos Warned of a “Heightened Threat Environment”
Internal directives issued to National Guard personnel in August warned that troops could be vulnerable to “grievance-based violence” and extremists inspired by foreign groups. Commanders also cautioned that politically charged members of the public might confront soldiers on duty.
The memo — filed in court as part of a lawsuit by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb — urged troops to take extra precautions, including traveling in pairs, wearing civilian clothes off-duty, and reporting any suspicious activity immediately.
Another directive from Aug. 12 warned that the mission could attract “criminals, violent extremists, issue-motivated groups and lone actors.”
City officials argued that deploying troops untrained in law enforcement created unnecessary danger for civilians, police, and the Guard. Justice Department lawyers disagreed, calling the threat “speculative.”
Court Ruling: Deployment Likely Illegal
Last week, a federal judge sided with D.C. officials, ruling that the deployment likely violated constitutional limits on presidential authority and the city’s right to self-governance. Judge Jia M. Cobb temporarily paused the mission, giving the administration several weeks to withdraw troops or appeal.
Typically, National Guard deployments inside the United States occur at the request of governors or local leaders. But since June, President Trump has sent waves of Guard members to Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago, Memphis, and Portland, arguing that federal force was necessary to protect property and reduce crime.
State officials — with few exceptions — rejected that claim.
Political Divide Over Troop Presence
Many Republican leaders support the deployments, calling them essential for public safety. In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee welcomed federal assistance in Memphis, where local authorities cooperated closely with the additional forces.
But most cities receiving troops have sued to stop the missions, accusing the administration of exceeding its authority and undermining public trust. Federal law generally prohibits using the military for domestic policing, although D.C.’s unique status makes the situation more complex.
Guard Members Express Mixed Feelings
Several Guard members interviewed expressed unease about the missions — questioning their legality privately while avoiding public criticism of the commander in chief.
Some former Guard leaders also voiced concerns about safety, noting that highly visible patrols in the nation’s capital could make troops attractive targets.
Brig. Gen. Paul G. Smith, former assistant adjutant general of Massachusetts, said danger is inherent any time military personnel are placed in domestic security roles.
“Whenever you put military personnel into any area on a security mission, there is an element of danger,” he said. “It’s about what they represent to people struggling with their own demons.”