Ohio Veterans Challenge Deployment of National Guard to Washington, D.C.
Concerns are mounting among Ohio veterans and active-duty families over the recent deployment of National Guard units to the nation’s capital. They argue that the move, intended for law enforcement and beautification, may overstep legal boundaries and impact community trust.
On August 16, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine announced the deployment of 150 military police from the Ohio National Guard to Washington, D.C. These troops are part of the Joint Task Force District of Columbia (JTF-DC), supporting the mission known as the “D.C. Safe and Beautiful Mission.” A coalition of nearly 1,900 guardsmen from seven states, including North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia, have been deployed in response to President Donald Trump’s August 11 executive order declaring a crime emergency in D.C.
Chris Purdy, Army National Guard veteran and CEO of The Chamberlain Network, criticized Governor DeWine’s decision, stating, “These are the military of each state effectively. If the president wants to federalize the National Guard, then that’s a fight he can have. For governors to go along with something they know is wrong, is a real dereliction of duty on their part.”
The deployment aligns with a subsequent executive order signed on August 25, mandating U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to prepare state National Guard units as a “quick reaction force” for national deployments. This force is intended to assist both federal and local law enforcement in managing civil disturbances and maintaining public safety.
Following a ten-day deployment period, the president highlighted a significant reduction in crime, noting that D.C. had experienced seven consecutive days without a homicide and an over 80 percent decrease in crime rates. However, Dan Maurer, an associate professor at Ohio Northern University College of Law, contends that extending National Guard deployments beyond their state duties violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which restricts military involvement in civilian affairs unless under extraordinary circumstances like those outlined in the Insurrection Act.
“Assuming the crime rate is statistically lower than it was a week ago — and that you can attribute it to the National Guard — the end is justifying the means and that’s not what the law says,” Maurer explained. “The law prohibits the use of the military even if it’s sufficient, even if it’s successful, unless certain conditions exist that warrant it.”
Additionally, veterans worry that the presence of National Guard units may erode trust between the military and local communities. Retired Army Brig. Gen. Christopher Dziubek emphasized the unique role of police in building community trust, which can be compromised when military personnel are involved in law enforcement activities.
Navy veteran Kenneth Harbaugh expressed concerns about the potential politicization of service members, especially when National Guard troops are seen working alongside other government agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). “National Guard troops are not covering their faces, they are not ashamed of serving in uniform,” Harbaugh stated. “But they are being associated unfairly with other government organizations — levers of power — that are not behaving as professionally.”
In response to the deployment, a recent press release from JTF-DC revealed that U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Leland D. Blanchard III, the interim commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, authorized guard members to carry their service-issued weapons “after careful consideration of the security environment.” Blanchard stated, “This decision is not something taken lightly. We are in coordination with our law enforcement partners and all appropriate review processes are in place.”
