Three Republican-led states to send hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington
West Virginia said it was deploying 300 to 400 Guard troops, while South Carolina pledged 200 and Ohio says it will send 150 in the coming days, marking a significant escalation of the federal intervention.
The moves came as protesters pushed back on federal law enforcement and National Guard troops fanning out in the heavily Democratic city following U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order federalising local police forces and activating about 800 District of Columbia National Guard members.
By adding outside troops to the existing D.C. Guard deployment and federal law enforcement presence, Mr. Trump is exercising even tighter control over the city. It's a power play that the President has justified as an emergency response to crime and homelessness, even though city officials have noted that violent crime is lower than it was during Mr. Trump's first term in office.
National Guard members have played a limited role in the federal intervention so far, and it's unclear why additional troops are needed. They have been patrolling at landmarks like the National Mall and Union Station and assisting law enforcement with tasks including crowd control.
The Republican Governors of the three states said they were sending hundreds of troops at the request of the Trump administration.
West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey said he directed 300 to 400 Guard troops to head to Washington, adding that the state 'is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital.'
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster said he authorised the deployment of 200 of his state's National Guardsmen to help law enforcement in Washington at the Pentagon's request. He noted that if a hurricane or other natural disaster strikes, they would be recalled.
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said he would send 150 military police from the Guard to 'carry out presence patrols and serve as added security' and that they were expected to arrive in the coming days. His statement said Army Secretary Dan Driscoll requested the troops.
The activations suggest the Trump administration sees the need for additional manpower after the president personally played down the need for Washington to hire more police officers.
A protest against Mr. Trump's intervention drew scores to Dupont Circle on Saturday (August 16, 2025) before a march to the White House, about 1.5 miles away. Demonstrators assembled behind a banner that said, 'No fascist takeover of D.C.,' and some in the crowd held signs saying, 'No military occupation.'
Morgan Taylor, one of the protest organisers, said they were hoping to spark enough backlash to Mr. Trump's actions that the administration would be forced to pull back on its crime and immigration agenda.
'It's hot, but I'm glad to be here. It's good to see all these people out here,' she said. 'I can't believe that this is happening in this country at this time.'
Fuelling the protests were concerns about Mr. Trump overreaching and that he had used crime as a pretext to impose his will on Washington.
John Finnigan, 55, was taking a bike ride when he ran into the protest in downtown Washington. The real estate construction manager who has lived in the capital for 27 years said Mr. Trump's moves were 'ridiculous' because crime is down.
'Hopefully, some of the mayors and some of the residents will get out in front of it and try and make it harder for it to happen in other cities,' Mr. Finnigan said.
Jamie Dickstein, a 24-year-old teacher, said she was 'very uncomfortable and worried' for the safety or her students given the 'unmarked officers of all types' now roaming Washington and detaining people.
Ms. Dickstein said she turned out to the protest with friends and relatives to 'prevent a continuous domino effect going forward with other cities.'
Federal agents have appeared in some of the city's most highly trafficked neighbourhoods, garnering a mix of praise, pushback and alarm from local residents and leaders across the country.
City leaders, who are obliged to cooperate with Mr. Trump's order under the federal laws that direct the district's local governance, have sought to work with the administration, though they have bristled at the scope of the president's takeover.
On Friday (August 15, 2025), the administration reversed course on an order that aimed to place the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration as an 'emergency police commissioner' after the district's top lawyer sued.
After a court hearing, Mr. Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, issued a memo directing the Metropolitan Police Department to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law.
City officials say they are evaluating how to best comply.
In his order Monday (August 11, 2025), Mr. Trump declared an emergency due to the 'city government's failure to maintain public order.' He said that impeded the 'federal government's ability to operate efficiently to address the nation's broader interests without fear of our workers being subjected to rampant violence.'
In a letter to city residents, Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, wrote that 'our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now.'
She added that if Washington residents stick together, 'we will show the entire nation what it looks like to fight for American democracy — even when we don't have full access to it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
18 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Before Trump, there was Bush Sr: How India dodged US tariffs in 1990s
As stormily as US President Donald Trump has revived tariffs in 2025 through his 'reciprocal' duties, sparking global concerns, trade tensions between India and the United States are not new. However, India has navigated this terrain before. An earlier flashpoint came over three decades ago under George HW Bush, when Washington threatened sanctions that raised alarms in New Delhi. At that time, the US was frustrated with India's closed economy, high tariffs, import bans on consumer goods, and weak intellectual property (IP) rules. Bush Sr's officials invoked legal provisions under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which had created 'Super 301' and strengthened 'Special 301' powers for the US Trade Representative (USTR). What followed was a tense back-and-forth, targeted suspensions of trade benefits from the US side, cautious liberalisation and bargaining from India in 1991 that helped the two sides avoid an all-out tariff war. What triggered US tariff threats against India? In 1989, under Super 301, USTR opened probes into India's restrictive trade regime. By June 1990, India's insurance policies were ruled 'unreasonable' and burdensome to US commerce. Retaliation was deferred as services and investment issues were negotiated in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The sharper escalation came in April 1991 under Special 301. USTR designated India as a "priority foreign country", the toughest category, citing lack of product patents for pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals. After a nine-month probe, USTR concluded in February 1992 that India's IP regime was 'unreasonable' and restricted US commerce. In April 1992, Bush suspended duty-free Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) benefits on $60 million worth of Indian exports, mainly pharma and chemicals. This was later widened to about $80 million. It marked the most concrete US step against India, but remained targeted rather than sweeping tariffs across the board. How did India respond to the US actions? India responded with a mix of domestic reform and sector-specific deals. In mid-1991, facing a balance-of-payments crisis, then prime minister PV Narasimha Rao and finance minister Manmohan Singh began liberalising the economy, resulting in cutting some tariffs, easing licensing and signalling a more transparent regime. The July 1991 reforms eliminated import licensing for most capital goods and raw materials, opening the economy to foreign inputs. These reforms were key to satisfying demands from the US and the broader international community, and allowed India to sidestep severe US retaliation through a combination of structural change, engagement, and international legal recourse. In parallel, India engaged in negotiations on IP and film imports. New Delhi made commitments in February 1992 to ease film import restrictions whose implementation started in August 1992. While product patents for medicines were not adopted then, copyright laws were strengthened by 1994–95, leading to India being downgraded from "priority foreign country" to the "priority watch list" by the USTR. Did the US ultimately impose broad tariffs on India? The Bush administration stopped short of sweeping tariffs. Broader retaliation flagged in 1990 did not proceed, and the dispute shifted into multilateral tracks, including the Uruguay Round and eventual WTO-linked TRIPS negotiations. This combination of selective concessions, structural reforms, and global negotiations lowered tensions and allowed India to sidestep wider sanctions. Implications for India and lessons for today For India, the episode underscored that market-access barriers and weak IP rules could carry real costs even short of tariffs. The 1992 GSP suspension hit sensitive sectors and signalled to investors that rules would tighten over time. It also intersected with domestic reform needs, nudging steps toward transparency, sectoral openings and eventual TRIPS-related commitments later in the 1990s. Now Trump's 'reciprocal tariff' regime marks a far more expansive use of tariffs as a first-line tool, framed as addressing deficits and reciprocity. Amid market turbulence and negotiations, the White House has repeatedly modified the schedule and, as of August 11, extended a truce with China for 90 days. By contrast, the Bush Sr era relied on targeted programme suspensions (like GSP) and case-by-case pressure to secure reforms, while keeping larger tariff escalation in reserve. The 1990-92 playbook suggests New Delhi can limit damage by addressing pinpoint grievances, keeping channels open and avoiding confrontational escalation that invites blanket tariffs. Back then, selective concessions and broader reforms helped India dodge wider sanctions. With global conditions more volatile today and US tools sharper, the margin for error is thinner.
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Putin's Bodyguards Bag Unknown Samples; Mysterious Kremlin Ritual Exposed
/ Aug 18, 2025, 05:18PM IST Vladimir Putin's recent Alaska summit with President Trump sparked more than talks about the Russia-Ukraine war. Unverified reports claim his security detail performs a highly unusual operation while traveling: collecting and sealing his waste before it can be left behind. First reported by French journalists in 2022, the theory suggests that urine and fecal matter could reveal medical secrets, including illnesses or treatments. Allegedly, a dedicated agent stores every trace in pouches and a secure suitcase, a practice reportedly repeated during visits to France and Saudi Arabia. Embassy staff are said to face extreme pressure to maintain secrecy. While Putin projects public strength, speculation about his health, from Parkinson's to cancer, adds an extra layer of intrigue to his 72-year-old leader's mystique.
News18
18 minutes ago
- News18
Trump Zelensky Meeting PM Narendra Modi Speaks With Russian President Valdimir Putin
Trump Zelensky Meeting | PM Narendra Modi Speaks With Russian President Valdimir Putin | News81 Last Updated: India Videos Prime Minister Modi's recent phone call with President Putin highlights India's pivotal role in seeking a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict. As tensions rise, Modi emphasizes dialogue while navigating U.S. sanctions impacting Indian oil imports. n18oc_india News18 Mobile App -
