The Trump administration is currently evaluating plans to establish a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force.” This initiative would consist of hundreds of National Guard troops prepared to rapidly deploy into American cities experiencing protests or unrest. Internal Pentagon documents reviewed by The Washington Post reveal that the plan aims to have 600 troops on standby at all times, capable of deployment within as little as one hour.
According to the documents, the troops would be divided into two groups of 300, stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, overseeing regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively. Cost projections indicate that the implementation of this mission could reach hundreds of millions of dollars, especially if military aircraft and air crews are required for continuous readiness. Interestingly, the documents suggest that transporting troops via commercial airlines could prove to be a more cost-effective solution.
This proposal, which has not been reported before, signifies a potential expansion of President Donald Trump’s willingness to utilize the military on American soil. It is based on a particular section of U.S. Code that permits the commander in chief to circumvent regulations governing the military's domestic use. The documents, marked as predecisional, provide a comprehensive analysis of the societal implications associated with establishing such a program. They were compiled by National Guard officials and bear timestamps from late July and early August. The earliest fiscal year for this program to be created and funded through the Pentagon’s traditional budgetary process is 2027, leaving open the possibility of earlier initiation via alternative funding sources.
While most National Guard commands maintain fast-response teams within their home states, the current proposal would allow for the transfer of troops between states. The National Guard had previously tested this concept ahead of the 2020 election by placing 600 troops on alert in Arizona and Alabama in anticipation of potential political violence. This followed significant unrest across the nation due to the police murder of George Floyd, which prompted various National Guard deployments.
During this time, President Trump expressed intentions to deploy active-duty combat troops, although Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and other Pentagon officials recommended relying on the National Guard, trained specifically for civil disturbances. Trump’s recent authorization of 800 D.C. National Guard troops to support law enforcement in Washington illustrates his administration's inclination to mobilize military resources for domestic issues.
Critics of the proposal have raised concerns about the normalization of military involvement in law enforcement. Legal scholars caution that the administration is relying on a tenuous legal basis that allows broad presidential action to safeguard federal property. Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice, warns against “normalizing routine military participation in law enforcement,” emphasizing the risks associated with establishing a quick-reaction force for civil unrest.
Furthermore, the complexities of deploying National Guard troops from one state to another without the governor's permission could lead to political friction. The proposed plan acknowledges these challenges, highlighting potential issues if a governor opts not to cooperate with the Pentagon.
Experts have pointed out that the strategy of deploying the National Guard in this manner could lower the threshold for future domestic deployments. Lindsay P. Cohn, an associate professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, notes that while National Guard units have been used for domestic emergencies, the current proposal is unusual and raises questions about its necessity, especially when crime rates are reportedly declining.
Moreover, the proposal could divert National Guard resources from critical roles in responding to natural disasters or other emergencies. The plan suggests a rotation of service members from various states, including Alabama, Arizona, California, and others, which could strain local resources during emergencies.
Documents indicate that the quick-reaction teams would have a structured deployment readiness timeline, with the first wave of troops prepared to move within one hour and subsequent waves within two and twelve hours. Concerns have been raised about the impact of short-notice missions on volunteerism and personnel retention within the National Guard.
Additional worries include reduced availability for other missions, strains on equipment and personnel, potential disruptions in training, and budgetary implications. The documents highlight that frequent domestic deployments could lead to significant wear and tear on equipment and affect overall military readiness.
As the Trump administration deliberates on this significant proposal, the implications for the National Guard and its traditional role in domestic emergencies remain a topic of heated discussion. The initiative represents a marked departure from how the National Guard has historically been utilized, raising concerns about the potential for increased military presence in civilian life and the long-term impact on public safety and civil liberties.
