States move to send hundreds of National Guard members to Washington
WASHINGTON — Three states moved to deploy hundreds of members of their National Guard to the nation's capital as part of the Trump administration's effort to overhaul policing in Washington through a federal crackdown on crime and homelessness.
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.
The moves announced Saturday came as protesters pushed back on federal law enforcement and National Guard troops fanning out in the heavily Democratic city following President Donald Trump's executive order federalizing local police forces and activating about 800 District of Columbia National Guard members.
By adding outside troops to join the existing Guard deployment and federal law enforcement officers, 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 Trump's first term in office.
So far, National Guard members have played a limited role in law enforcement in D.C. and it's unclear why additional troops are needed. They have been seen patrolling at landmarks like the National Mall and Union Station and assisting with crowd control.
A protest against Trump's intervention drew scores to Dupont Circle on Saturday 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.'
Trump was at his Virginia golf club after Friday's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
Protest pushes back on federal officers in Washington
Morgan Taylor, one of the organizers who coordinated Saturday's protest, said they were hoping to spark enough backlash to 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.'
Fueling the protests were concerns about Trump overreach 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 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,' 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.
Dickstein said she turned out to the protest with friends and relatives to 'prevent a continuous domino effect going forward with other cities.'
Trump District of Columbia
An activist holds up a baguette in support of a fired former Justice Department employee who hurled a sandwich at a federal law-enforcement official, during a protest of President Donald Trump's federal takeover of policing of the District of Columbia, Saturday, Aug. 16, 2025, near the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
(Alex Brandon/AP)
National Guard is coming to D.C. from West Virginia, South Carolina and Ohio
Gov. Patrick Morrisey, R-W.Va., announced Saturday that he was sending a contingent of 300 to 400 Guard troops to Washington, while South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster authorized the deployment of 200 of his state's National Guardsmen and Ohio Gov Mike DeWine said his state would send 150 military police at the request of the U.S. Defense Department.
'West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital,' Morrisey said.
The West Virginia activation suggests the administration sees the need for additional manpower after the president personally played down the need for Washington to hire more police officers.
Maj. Gen. James Seward, West Virginia's adjutant general, said in a statement that members of the state's National Guard 'stand ready to support our partners in the National Capital Region' and that the troops' 'unique capabilities and preparedness make it an invaluable partner in this important undertaking.'
Federal law enforcement in Washington draws mixed reactions
Federal agents have appeared in some of the city's most highly trafficked neighborhoods, garnering a mix of praise, pushback and alarm from local residents and leaders across the country.
City leaders, who are obliged to cooperate with 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, 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 to contest.
After a court hearing, Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, issued a memo that directed 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, 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.'
Matt Brown And Mike Pesoli, The Associated Press
Associated Press writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
European leaders to join Trump-Zelenskyy meeting
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday, but he'll have the support of several European leaders in discussing steps toward peace with Russia.
National Post
7 hours ago
- National Post
Adam Zivo: Putin outplays Trump yet again
U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that he would negotiate a ceasefire deal for Ukraine at his Alaska summit last Friday. Yet, he failed and found himself once again outplayed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who got much of what he wanted from the White House while conceding fairly little. Though Trump now seems to support the idea of ceding a key Ukrainian province in exchange for giving Kyiv NATO-style security guarantees, the details here, or lack thereof, warrant a great deal of pessimism. Article content Article content Expectations for the summit were low from the beginning amongst the Ukrainians I spoke with in Odesa, as well as influential online political commentators in the country, as many suspected that the event's existence would simply delay harsher sanctions against Russia and its trading partners. Article content Article content While European and American lawmakers have been eager to economically punish Moscow for months, Trump has intervened whenever they have moved to do so and has repeatedly insisted that, based on his friendly conversations with Putin, Ukraine and its allies should commit to peace talks instead. Article content But these talks have invariably failed, thanks to Russia's unreasonable demands. Among other things, Putin has insisted that a negotiated settlement can only be achieved if Ukraine cedes four of its provinces — Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson — and that the Ukrainians scrap all of their international security alliances and 'demilitarize' themselves by shrinking their armed forces to a token size. Article content Such concessions would guarantee Ukraine's future vassalization or full annexation, especially because most of the current frontlines, and ergo most of the country's defensive fortifications, are located within these provinces. As such, Kyiv has never been in a position to agree to Russia's maximalist terms: how can a government willingly accede to its nation's future dismemberment? Article content While Ukraine's European allies have long understood that Putin is not serious about peace, Trump seemed to only grasp this fact last month. Citing Russia's relentless attacks upon Ukrainian civilians, the American president's rhetoric towards Russia abruptly soured. He accused Putin of spewing 'bulls–t' and 'meaningless' talk, and issued an ultimatum: sign a ceasefire by early August or face the consequences. Article content But then the deadline came and nothing really happened. Article content Rather than impose 100 per cent tariffs on Russia and its trading partners, as had been threatened, Trump only slapped a 25 per cent tariff on India, the world's second-largest purchaser of Russian oil and gas, while sparing other customers. He concurrently announced his Alaska summit, and argued that further sanctions should wait amid renewed peace talks. Article content The development was perplexing: why had Trump suddenly regained his faith in Putin? And why did he have any reason to believe that a deal could be found if Russia had not given any indication that it would seriously rethink its demands? Yet his optimism seemed earnest, as his behind-the-scenes lobbying for a Nobel Peace Prize intensified around this time. Article content In the lead up to the summit, U.S. officials reportedly offered Russia access to Alaska's natural resources — especially rare earth minerals — if a peace deal were signed. The event's guest list suggested that Russo-American economic cooperation might be a major theme, echoing Trump's previous fixation on the potential value of a trade alliance. Article content Perhaps the idea was to strike some grand bargain — one that could not only bring peace to Europe, but peel Russia away from China and lock Beijing out of the Arctic. If these were indeed the White House's aspirations, they were quickly shattered. Article content On the day of the summit, Putin and his entourage were given a red carpet entrance. They allegedly came armed with a trove of historical documents which, according to them, showed that Ukraine is an artificial nation and that Ukrainians are, in fact, nothing more than wayward Russians. Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov wore jeans and a sweater bearing the letters 'CCCP' (cyrillic for 'USSR') — curiously, no one hectored him for not wearing a suit. Article content The symbolism was clear: Moscow's representatives did not recognize the cultural, let alone political, independence of Ukraine, and remained nostalgic for Russia's erstwhile Soviet glory, imperium and all. Article content At the beginning, everyone seemed happy. The two presidents shared a short, private limousine ride together, with Trump smiling like a child meeting his favourite celebrity. Then the delegations came together for their private negotiations and, although the Kremlin had originally estimated that these talks would last six or seven hours, something evidently went wrong: just three hours later, both sides walked out, stonefaced. Article content The presidents held a 'press conference' where no questions were permitted. No ceasefire deal had been made, but Trump said that they had come to an 'agreement' on unspecified points, while Putin alluded to an 'understanding' between the two men. Putin dominated the podium, speaking for eight minutes and expounding on Alaska's Russian history, while Trump, normally so loquacious, spoke for only three. Article content Documents discovered in the public printer of a nearby hotel indicate that the White House had originally planned to host a luncheon 'in honor of his excellency Vladimir Putin,' but that was abruptly cancelled. The Russians flew home early, but nonetheless saw the meeting as a victory: had they not shown that they were equals to the Americans, and that they were not, in fact, diplomatically isolated? Article content Although Trump had said, on his way to Alaska, that he would impose 'severe consequences' if Putin did not agree to an immediate ceasefire, none materialized. In fact, after the summit, Trump pivoted and denied that a ceasefire deal was necessary at all, and argued that Russia and Ukraine should focus on negotiating a full peace agreement first, and that other countries should refrain from imposing new sanctions while talks continue. Article content This was a huge win for Moscow, which has long insisted that any ceasefire should come at the end of the peace process, not the beginning, presumably so Russian forces can press their advantages and weaken Kyiv's negotiation position. So not only did Trump save the sputtering Russian economy from tougher sanctions for the foreseeable future, he also reframed the entire peace process to better suit Moscow's needs. Article content After the summit, Trump briefed Zelenskyy and several allied leaders on Putin's demands. He reportedly told them that Putin had proposed freezing the frontlines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in exchange for receiving full control of the Donetsk province — which is a plan that Trump reportedly now supports. Article content But this would be disastrous. Ukraine spent the past 11 years establishing a 'fortress belt' of heavily fortified cities and towns in the centre of Donetsk, which now serve as the core of the country's defences. Russia has tried to conquer this belt for over a year, but has seen only very slow and costly progress. Ceding this territory would leave central Ukraine exposed, and would require Kyiv to quickly rebuild its fortifications in bordering provinces where the terrain is poorly suited for defence. In contrast, the benefits of freezing the frontlines in Zarporzhzhia and Kherson would be marginal, as Russia does not have any momentum there. Article content To put things another way: though Putin slightly diluted his demands (by focusing on Donetsk, and not all four provinces), the consequences of his proposal would remain catastrophic. There is no reason why Ukraine should give away its shield for nothing. Article content However, on Sunday, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said that during the Alaska summit Putin agreed to have the United States and European countries provide Ukraine with NATO-style security guarantees, without formal NATO membership, as part of the peace deal. Also Sunday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer praised the plan, though U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was less definitive on specific American security guarantees. Further complicating things, reporting by Axios suggests that Putin proposed including China as a security guarantor. Article content While this sounds promising, the devil will be in the details. Back in early 2022, during the first round of Istanbul peace talks, Moscow proposed establishing a coalition of security guarantors for Ukraine in exchange for Kyiv's demilitarization and Russian annexation of Ukrainian land. The caveat, though, was that Russia wanted to be one of these guarantors, and wanted a system where any guarantor could veto the military intervention of any other member. In other words: these security guarantees would have been useless — a scam, really — because Moscow would have had control over whether they were exercised. Article content Article content Given the inconsistent messaging coming out of Washington and the allegation that Russia wants China, its close ally, inserted into any security assurances for Ukraine, a heaping dose of skepticism is warranted — at least until more details are disclosed. Promises can be cheap, misleading and rife with loopholes. This is a reality that Ukrainians sorely understand, given that, in 1994, they gave up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for American and Russian security guarantees that turned out to be useless. Article content
Toronto Sun
8 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
HANSON: Who has been busy destroying democracy?
In this pool photograph distributed by the Russian state agency Sputnik, US President Donald Trump listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a joint press conference after participating in a US-Russia summit on Ukraine at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. Photo by Gavriil GRIGOROV/POOL / AFP via Getty Images 'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster, though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia, by altering the Constitution, as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat cancelled his re-election effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state, and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 re-election bid? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10-12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers, and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60-70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviours of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle class through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hell-bent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So, it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows, given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Toronto & GTA Columnists Money News Canada CFL
