Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have there been instances where US military forces were used to fight crime in American cities, and what were the outcomes?
Executive summary
Yes — U.S. military forces, chiefly the National Guard and occasionally federalized troops or federal law-enforcement-backed forces, have been deployed to U.S. cities to assist with “crime” or public‑order missions in 2025; deployments began in places such as Los Angeles (June), Washington, D.C. (August, ~2,000 troops), Memphis and Portland later in the year, and sparked legal challenges, court blocks, and widespread debate about effectiveness and legality [1] [2] [3]. Critics say such deployments don’t reduce crime and undermine local democracy; proponents argue they protect federal property and personnel and deter disorder [4] [3] [5].
1. A modern wave: where and why troops were put on U.S. streets
In 2025 the Trump administration ordered National Guard and other federal forces into multiple U.S. cities, starting with a Los Angeles deployment in June and expanding to Washington, D.C., where about 2,000 National Guard troops (including ~800 D.C. Guard members) were activated in August; subsequent actions targeted Memphis, Portland, Chicago and proposals for others as part of a stated “crime” and immigration crackdown [1] [3] [6] [7].
2. Legal and constitutional friction: courts and the Insurrection Act
The administration’s maneuvers provoked immediate legal fights over federal authority, Posse Comitatus limits, and whether the Insurrection Act was properly invoked; courts temporarily blocked deployments in places like Chicago and Oregon and judges have at times ruled such uses unlawful, underscoring that presidential determinations remain subject to judicial review [5] [2] [8].
3. What proponents claim: order, protection of federal assets, deterrence
The White House framed deployments as necessary to protect federal buildings and personnel, back up overwhelmed local law enforcement, and deter crime and illegal immigration — a policy defended as restoring order by some officials and supporters who say federal intervention was warranted to protect workers and tourists [2] [9].
4. What critics say: evidence, democracy and impracticality
Multiple observers and outlets argue the operations did not target the highest‑crime jurisdictions, often stationed troops in low‑crime tourist areas, and produced little measurable crime reduction while undermining local control and trust; analyses show many targeted cities had falling crime trends, and scholars warn the militarization of public safety erodes democracy and risks lives [10] [3] [4].
5. Costs and operational tradeoffs
Journalistic estimates put the financial cost of the occupations in the hundreds of millions — nearly $473 million across cities in one analysis — and internal military concerns reportedly warned of “extremely high” risks to civilians, troops, and the military’s reputation when used for domestic policing roles [11] [1].
6. National Guard vs. active-duty forces: a critical distinction
Deployments have centered on federalizing National Guard units and augmenting federal law enforcement; while the Guard is frequently used for domestic emergencies, legal experts stress that invoking broader active‑duty military powers would be far more fraught under Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act — and courts have already scrutinized such federalizations [5] [12].
7. Outcomes so far: mixed, contested, short on conclusive crime data
Available reporting documents arrests and firearms seizures in some deployments (for example in D.C.) but also notes polls showing public opposition and independent analyses that the deployments did not focus on the most violent cities and coincided with nationwide crime declines; no clear, peer‑reviewed causal finding is cited in the coverage to prove the military reduced urban crime [1] [13] [10].
8. Broader implications: civil‑military norms and international echoes
Analysts warn these deployments risk normalizing the use of troops on American soil for routine policing and could strain civil‑military boundaries long upheld in U.S. law; commentators compare the 2025 posture to rare historical uses of the Insurrection Act and note global observers finding the U.S. approach striking when placed alongside other democracies’ practices [12] [14].
9. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention definitive, long‑term crime‑reduction studies tying the 2025 deployments directly to sustained drops in violence, nor do they offer a consensus cost‑benefit judgment from independent evaluators; in short, rigorous evaluation of effectiveness and long‑term social impact is not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
Conclusion: recent U.S. uses of military forces in American cities are well‑documented, highly contested, and legally fraught. Reporting shows deployments produced arrests and expensive occupations, triggered court interventions, and intensified public debate — but independent, conclusive evidence that they reduced urban crime or improved long‑term public safety is not present in the cited coverage [1] [11] [10].