What training do National Guard troops receive for crowd control and de-escalation techniques?

1. What the memos order: a structured crowd‑control curriculum

Internal memos reviewed by multiple outlets direct each state and territory to stand up quick reaction forces trained in “civil disturbance operations” and “crowd control,” with specific tasks such as forming “Squad‑sized Riot Control Formation,” employing a riot baton as a formation member, supervising riot/crowd control operations, and training on batons, body shields, Tasers, pepper spray and other non‑lethal options ^{[1] [5]}. The curriculum reportedly includes an initial phase covering crowd management techniques and domestic civil disturbance training, followed by intermediate instruction focused on non‑lethal weapons and detainee operations ^{[3] [4]}.

2. De‑escalation is included — what reporters say the courses cover

Multiple outlets cite the memos’ requirement that training include “de‑escalation of force techniques,” and they name specific courses to be used, such as the Interservice Nonlethal Individual Weapons Instructor Course, which Task & Purpose reports will be directed for state use and includes de‑escalation modules alongside weapons handling and communications ^{[2] [1]}. That means the official materials cited by reporters combine technique for controlling crowds with instruction intended to limit use of higher levels of force ^[2].

3. Equipment, tempo and readiness expectations

The memos call for tangible resources and readiness: each state to be given roughly 100 sets of crowd control equipment and two full‑time Guardsmen on active orders to manage training and response; some reporting puts the total force to be trained at about 23,000–23,500 troops nationwide and sets operational deadlines ^{[3] [2] [5]}. State-level reporting (e.g., Maryland, Nevada) echoes those priorities and establishes local timelines to stand up these reaction elements ^{[6] [7]}.

4. How training differs from prior Guard roles — according to sources

Reporting notes that while governors have long had on‑call Guard elements for varied missions, the memos expand or formalize riot/civil‑disturbance capabilities to a higher, more standardized level nationwide, including more systematic use of non‑lethal armaments and formation tactics that some Guardsmen say “take it up a level” compared with older assistance‑to‑civil‑authorities training ^{[6] [2]}. Military outlets describe the order as part of broader efforts to create rapidly deployable units specifically oriented to civil unrest scenarios ^{[4] [8]}.

5. Competing perspectives and political context

The coverage is framed within political controversy: outlets note the memos follow an executive order and deployments tied to the current administration’s public safety agenda, and some reporting and commentators express concern about militarizing responses to protests; other voices cited in reporting argue Guard deployments reduced crime in some cities and defend rapid‑response capabilities ^{[9] [1]}. The Task & Purpose piece quotes a Guardsman emphasizing readiness to support civilian authorities rather than to “quell dissent,” showing internal debate over mission intent ^{[9] [2]}.

6. What reporters do not (yet) document or confirm

Available sources do not mention detailed lesson plans, standardized assessment metrics for de‑escalation, long‑term oversight mechanisms, or independent evaluations of how the de‑escalation training will be measured in the field; they also do not provide complete state‑by‑state roll‑out schedules beyond several examples ^{[2] [3]}. Where critics call the program “riot control,” and officials call it public‑safety preparedness, available reporting documents both claims but does not resolve whether doctrine or practice will favor one outcome over the other ^{[1] [9]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

The publicly reported memos require systematic training of National Guard quick reaction forces in riot‑control formations, non‑lethal weapons, detainee handling and de‑escalation techniques, paired with equipment and trainers to meet a national readiness date ^{[2] [3] [1]}. Journalistic accounts show both an intent to professionalize civil‑disturbance response and clear political disagreement about purpose and risks; precise curricular content, assessment, and civilian oversight details are not fully described in the available reporting ^{[2] [1]}.