Say Something Real
By Michelle Bryant
Michelle Bryant
When the Trump administration dispatched the National Guard into American cities under the banner of “fighting crime,” the move was hailed by some as a strong, decisive response to surging violence. The image of uniformed troops patrolling city streets may have reassured certain segments of the public, but history—and mounting evidence—shows that these short-term interventions come at a high price and often leave communities wrestling with deeper, long-term consequences.
It reminds me of my first visit to Jamaica. In preparing for my week of fun with friends, I had dreamed of pristine beaches, cabanas, sailing, and meeting the locals. I wasn’t prepared for the presence of armed military soldiers, being utilized during routine traffic and domestic policing. It was unnerving and intimidating. As residents went about their routines, I peered from the car window, thankful that this was just a visit. There’s no way I would want to live like this. While there are quite a few countries that operate in this fashion, I was proud to say that it is not the case in America. I guess I spoke too soon.
The legality of deploying the National Guard within the United States varies, depending on location. In Washington, D.C., the President has unique authority, as the District is not a state and falls under federal jurisdiction. This means the White House can send Guard troops into the capital without a governor’s consent—a power that has been exercised during periods of civil unrest, most notably in the summer of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd.
In contrast, deploying the National Guard to other states requires the approval of state governors or the invocation of the Insurrection Act—an extreme and rarely used measure. Trumped-up images of rampant violence impeding public safety are not a basis for such a deployment.
Flooding city streets with troops may provide a fleeting sense of order, but it does little to address the root causes of crime, which include poverty, lack of opportunity, systemic inequities, inadequate healthcare systems, and the erosion of trust between communities and law enforcement. The presence of the National Guard is, by design, temporary. When the troops go home, the underlying issues remain, often worsened by the trauma and resentment left in their wake.
Long-term solutions, such as investments in education, job creation, mental health services, and community policing that builds trust rather than fear, can’t be replaced with unsustainable and ill-thought-out militarization of local policing. These approaches, while more difficult, are proven determinants of crime and less costly. Industry experts estimate that Americans are paying roughly $1 million a day to occupy Washington, D. C.
Perhaps most concerning is the damage being done to governance and community-police relations. We walk a fine line in the balance between public safety and civil liberties. Communities that feel occupied rather than protected are less likely to cooperate with law enforcement, making future crime-fighting efforts even more difficult. Communities must resist the temptation of quick fixes and the ease with which we are relinquishing our rights. Once we journey down this path, the road back will be long and difficult.