STORY: In Washington, the National Guard no longer has a departure date

More than a million dollars a day, according to the City Council president

Washington City Council President Phil Mendelson has estimated the cost of this operation at more than one million dollars a day for taxpayers, according to the Associated Press—a colossal sum for a mission whose actual usefulness remains hotly contested by many local elected officials and civil liberties organizations.

Mendelson summed up his position bluntly: “Having armed soldiers on the streets of America is not a pleasant sight,” a statement that captures the persistent unease among some local politicians regarding a military presence they neither control nor can halt.

Mass arrests claimed, but disputed on the ground

The White House, through spokesperson Abigail Jackson, claims 12,000 arrests since the start of the operation, including 62 identified gang members and the seizure of thousands of illegal firearms, asserting that the presidential task force has “produced remarkable results for local communities,” according to the Associated Press.

But local officials dispute the extent to which credit should be given to this military deployment, pointing out that data shows a decline in crime that had already begun before the National Guard’s arrival—data that is itself currently under scrutiny due to allegations that local police may have manipulated it.

This tendency to claim success in public safety while refusing to provide a withdrawal timeline strikes me as telling: if the mission were truly accomplished, why keep more than 4,000 troops in a city that has never democratically requested their presence?

An ambush just a few blocks from the White House

This account cannot overlook a tragic event that occurred during the deployment: Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20, a member of the West Virginia National Guard, was killed in a gunfire ambush just a few blocks from the White House, according to the Associated Press; a colleague was also seriously wounded in the incident.

This tragedy profoundly shaped local perceptions of the deployment, with some residents noting that criticism of the Guard’s presence subsided after the incident—a shift in public sentiment that complicates any simple judgment of this prolonged military occupation.

The Precinct Commissioner Who Refuses to Blame the Soldiers

Kevin Cataldo, a precinct commissioner who recently accompanied the local metropolitan police on a patrol, made it a point of honor to treat National Guard members with respect, acknowledging that they “did not come to occupy this city” of their own accord, and describing Sarah Beckstrom’s death as “simply terrible,” according to the Associated Press.

This distinction—between individual soldiers sent to carry out a mission they did not choose and the political decision that placed them there—runs through much of the testimony gathered in Washington, where anger is directed more toward the administration than toward the military personnel themselves.

I think it’s absolutely essential to distinguish between these two forms of anger: that directed at young soldiers who are following orders, and that directed at an administration that has placed them in a dangerous, politically exploited domestic mission with no end in sight.

Brianne Nadeau and the City Council’s Straight Talk

City Councilwoman Brianne Nadeau says her constituents continue to seek information about the prolonged presence of the National Guard, even though complaints have dropped significantly since the initial phase of the deployment, according to the Associated Press. Her message is unequivocal: “It would be great if the federal government would devote its funds and resources to helping the district meet its real needs, instead of acting like an occupying force.”

The District Council has also unanimously approved a measure aimed at increasing transparency regarding the activities of federal law enforcement agencies within its territory—a political gesture that reflects local institutional frustration with a military presence decided upon without consultation with the city government.

The Free DC Organization and the Election Warning

Keya Chatterjee, co-founder and director of Free DC, an organization advocating for the city’s autonomy, warns that normalizing the National Guard’s presence facilitates the suppression of dissent and “skews the electoral landscape,” according to the Associated Press, fearing that the visible presence of weapons and military personnel will create an intimidating atmosphere during upcoming local elections.

This electoral concern takes on particular significance in a city where Mayor Muriel Bowser has chosen not to seek reelection, leaving the field open for an election campaign that, for the first time in decades, is taking place under the constant presence of armed soldiers on the streets of the nation’s capital.

Keya Chatterjee’s warning about the distortion of the electoral landscape strikes me as the most underestimated aspect of this entire situation: a local election held under federal military surveillance is by no means a trivial matter in a democracy that prides itself on being a global model.

A City Without True Autonomy in the Face of Federal Authority

Caroline Michelman, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, points out that this situation highlights the structural limitations of the city’s self-governance, noting that “we should have local governance and democratic accountability for those who enforce our laws,” according to the Associated Press.

Michelman adds that “Washington is particularly powerless in many respects within our system,” a legal observation that underscores how Congress retains direct control over the capital’s laws and budget, while the president has direct authority over the District’s National Guard—a situation unique to Washington among major U.S. cities.

A Striking Contrast to California and Illinois

Unlike Washington, D.C., other U.S. cities have seen their National Guard deployments concluded or halted by court rulings, particularly in California and Illinois, according to the Associated Press—a difference that illustrates the District of Columbia’s particular legal vulnerability in the face of federal executive power.

This contrast highlights a troubling institutional reality: because Washington is not a state and does not enjoy the same constitutional protections as California or Illinois, its residents have significantly more limited legal recourse to challenge a federal military presence on their own territory.

This legal imbalance between Washington and the traditional U.S. states strikes me as exactly the kind of institutional loophole that an administration eager to project an image of security resolve can exploit without much legal resistance.

A municipal campaign that carefully avoids the subject

According to the Associated Press, the National Guard’s continued presence is rarely discussed at City Council meetings or by candidates running for mayor and congressional seats—a relative silence that stands in stark contrast to the scale of the deployment and its daily cost to the capital’s taxpayers.

Candidates vying to succeed Mayor Bowser, as well as longtime Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, are focusing more on housing affordability, statehood for Washington, and holding federal agencies accountable, rather than on the military presence itself—a strategic choice that reveals a sense of weariness or resignation.

A Primary Election Held Under This Military Shadow

The special election for a seat on the district-wide City Council, held on June 16, 2026, took place even as this military presence remained fully active on the capital’s streets—an unprecedented electoral context that nevertheless failed to spark the public debate one might expect from such a situation.

This relative electoral silence could be explained by the fatigue of a population simultaneously facing this prolonged military presence, rising unemployment, and declining incomes linked to federal workforce reductions—immediate economic concerns that sometimes seem to overshadow the military issue in voters’ minds.

This electoral silence worries me more than any provocative statement by Pete Hegseth: this is often how the most exceptional situations end up becoming the new normal—through weariness rather than genuine consent.

One million tourists, with soldiers in fatigues among them

Every year, more than a million people flock to Washington’s Tidal Basin to admire the cherry blossoms, but this year, according to the Associated Press, some visitors spotted armed soldiers in camouflage near the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial—a scene that would have seemed unthinkable in the U.S. capital just a few years ago.

This juxtaposition of Washington’s traditional, peaceful tourism and an armed military presence at its most iconic sites captures, better than any statistic, the extent of the transformation the nation’s capital has undergone since last August’s declaration of a state of emergency.

Patrols in the Metro and Residential Neighborhoods

Beyond the major tourist attractions, National Guard members are also patrolling subway stations, residential neighborhoods, and city parks, according to the Associated Press—a daily presence that has become so integrated into Washington’s urban landscape that some residents say they pay less and less attention to it.

This gradual normalization of a military presence in everyday civilian life is perhaps the most troubling aspect of this story: what would have shocked the public a year ago has now blended into the ordinary backdrop of life in Washington.

This gradual normalization is precisely what alarms me most about this issue: a democratic society should never grow accustomed to seeing armed soldiers patrolling its national monuments and metro stations as if they were a permanent fixture.

A working group established in March 2025, which has since been expanded

The D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, formed by President Trump in March 2025, was initially mandated to direct federal agencies toward initiatives to beautify the nation’s capital, according to USA Today—a goal that now seems far removed from the militarized reality of its current implementation on the ground.

This shift from the original mandate—from an urban beautification project to a large-scale law enforcement operation backed by thousands of military personnel—illustrates how initiatives presented as modest can gradually expand far beyond their originally stated scope.

The End of Federal Police Control, but Not of Military Deployment

While federal control of the city’s police department ended in September, according to USA Today, National Guard deployments have continued uninterrupted—an administrative distinction that allows the administration to present a semblance of de-escalation while maintaining the bulk of its military presence on the ground.

This maneuver—which consists of symbolically ending one measure while maintaining the most visible and costly one—fairly well sums up the Trump administration’s communication strategy regarding this issue: giving the impression of a pullback while consolidating the bulk of the security apparatus.

I see this administrative maneuver as a classic example of managing public perception: ending the most symbolically contested measure to better obscure the fact that the core military presence is, in fact, only expanding.

A precedent that several governors fear

The case of Washington, D.C.—where the president exercises direct authority over the District’s National Guard without needing the consent of a state governor—is causing concern among several elected officials in other U.S. cities, who fear that this precedent will normalize the idea of prolonged domestic military deployment as a routine tool of urban policy.

This fear is compounded by the fact that other National Guard deployments—attempted in cities located in states with greater constitutional autonomy, such as California and Illinois—have been blocked by the courts, an option that remains structurally unavailable to Washington, D.C., residents.

A federal watchdog organization documents abuses

The organization American Oversight, which documents investigations into the federal military occupation of several U.S. cities, is closely monitoring developments in Washington, D.C., viewing this prolonged deployment as a test case that could reveal how the administration might seek to replicate this model elsewhere in the country.

This documentary vigilance, carried out by independent organizations rather than by official institutions themselves, underscores the growing role of civil society in compensating for what appears, in the eyes of many observers, to be a lack of democratic oversight over this type of domestic military deployment.

The fact that a civil society organization—rather than Congress—is the one most rigorously documenting the abuses associated with this deployment speaks volumes, in my view, about the inadequacy of the accountability mechanisms currently in place in Washington.

A mission they did not choose, but one they are carrying out

This account must also give voice to the service members themselves—often young, such as Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, who was just 20 years old—sent to carry out a politically charged domestic mission they did not choose, and over which they have no control regarding its duration or political outcome—a human reality all too often absent from strictly partisan debates on this issue.

These soldiers, hailing from several states including West Virginia, find themselves at the center of a national political controversy that is far beyond their control, exposed to real risks—as tragically demonstrated by the ambush that claimed the life of their comrade—while unwittingly becoming symbols in a debate they did not initiate.

Public Recognition That Does Not Address the Underlying Issues

The tributes paid to Sarah Beckstrom and the public recognition of the sacrifice made by the service members deployed in Washington, however sincere they may be, do not answer the central question raised by this story: why is this mission continuing without a clear end date, eight months after it was first announced, and according to what specific criteria will its conclusion eventually be determined?

This persistent lack of a clear answer—from both spokesperson Abigail Jackson and the Pentagon, which did not respond to requests for comment according to the Associated Press—leaves a cloud of uncertainty hanging over both Washington residents and the service members themselves, both of whom are held hostage by a political decision whose exit strategy remains opaque.

I refuse to turn this political criticism into an attack on the soldiers themselves: it is the institutions, the decision-makers, and the political chain of command that must answer for the lack of a timeline—not the young service members sent into the field.

An Open Preference for Demonstrating Domestic Strength

This prolonged deployment in Washington is part of a broader trend under the Trump presidency, which has advocated for an expanded federal role in the district by citing concerns about crime, homelessness, and public safety—an approach that systematically prioritizes visible displays of force over structural solutions negotiated with local authorities.

This preference for security posturing, rather than genuine collaboration with the city’s elected government, illustrates a conception of presidential authority that treats Washington less as a fully-fledged democratic community than as a testing ground for security policies that, according to some observers, could be replicated elsewhere.

A domestic precedent that deserves constant monitoring

This account concludes with an acknowledged concern: when a presidency normalizes the prolonged military deployment in its own capital—without a withdrawal timeline, without genuine democratic consultation, and without quantifiable and verifiable accountability—it sets a precedent whose institutional consequences will extend far beyond the term of this single presidency.

It is this specific domestic drift—distinct from any international stance on the military or diplomatic stage—that this account chooses to document with the rigor and caution required by a subject as sensitive to American democracy itself.

I believe it is possible to acknowledge Trump’s necessary firmness on certain international issues while at the same time uncompromisingly denouncing this specific domestic deviation: these two assessments are not contradictory; in fact, they are mutually indispensable to remaining intellectually honest.

No direct equivalent among major democratic allies

No major democratic capital allied with the United States—whether London, Paris, or Ottawa—is currently experiencing a prolonged domestic military deployment comparable to that in Washington, a lack of precedent that underscores the exceptional nature of the American situation even within the Western world, which this columnist otherwise defends with conviction.

This comparison is by no means trivial: it serves as a reminder that the strength of Western democracies rests precisely on their ability to ensure public safety without resorting to a permanent military presence in their own capitals—a balance that Washington now appears to have disrupted without any genuine democratic debate.

A contrast that undermines the U.S. message abroad

This embarrassing contrast complicates the United States’ position when it rightly criticizes the authoritarian excesses of other regimes around the world, insofar as images of armed soldiers patrolling Washington’s monuments provide easy ammunition to anyone seeking to downplay American criticism of other governments.

This columnist, who unreservedly supports the West’s firm stance toward Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, believes that such consistency also requires honestly acknowledging when a domestic U.S. policy strays from the democratic principles it advocates beyond its borders.

I reject the logic of double standards: if I criticize authoritarian excesses abroad, I must have the intellectual integrity to also call out those occurring within the West’s most powerful ally itself.

A legal dispute still pending

A legal dispute regarding the deployment of the National Guard is currently ongoing, according to the Associated Press, though the district attorney’s office—which is challenging the deployment in court—has declined to comment publicly on the matter while it remains pending in the courts.

The outcome of this legal dispute could be the only concrete mechanism capable of enforcing a withdrawal timeline, given that neither the White House nor the Pentagon has provided a specific timeline—a situation that places the judiciary in the role of ultimate arbiter, a role that the normal political process has so far failed to assume.

A Municipal Election That Could Change Everything

With Mayor Muriel Bowser’s announced departure and a local election campaign underway, the outcome of the upcoming municipal election in Washington could significantly alter the local political balance of power regarding this deployment, even though ultimate authority over the District’s National Guard remains in the hands of the president rather than the locally elected mayor.

This story therefore calls for close attention, in the coming months, to both the outcome of the ongoing legal dispute and the results of this local political transition—two distinct processes that could together determine whether this military presence will ultimately have a definitive end date.

I believe this issue deserves to be monitored with the same rigor as a major foreign policy issue, because the way Washington manages this domestic military presence will speak volumes about the true state of American democratic checks and balances in the years to come.

What This Account Reveals About Eight Months of Military Presence

This account highlights a documented and verifiable reality: eight months after it was announced, the National Guard deployment in Washington shows no signs of being scaled back, costs more than $1 million a day according to City Council President Phil Mendelson, and continues to draw criticism from local elected officials, civil liberties organizations, and residents who were never consulted about its necessity or duration.

This report also highlights the tragic death of Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, a human tragedy that has complicated—without resolving—the public debate over the legitimacy and duration of this military presence on the streets of the U.S. capital.

A question that remains open as July 4 approaches

As July 4 approaches—a day meant to celebrate American independence and democracy—this story ends with a simple yet profound question: How much longer can a democratic capital live under a permanent military presence without its own local elected officials receiving a clear answer on when this operation will end?

This question, posed without an answer by the Associated Press, USA Today, and numerous local elected officials cited in this report, remains entirely open—and it is precisely this lack of an answer that, in and of itself, constitutes the troubling heart of this issue.

I conclude this story with a simple conviction: a democracy that can no longer say when it will end the military occupation of its own capital has already lost something essential, even if it continues to celebrate its independence every July 4th.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist