A member of the National Guard arrives at the Guard’s headquarters at the D.C. Armory on Tuesday,  Aug. 12, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump announced he is placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, and will deploy the National Guard to the District to assist in crime prevention in the nation’s capital. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s move to deploy 800 National Guard members in the District of Columbia over claims that crime is plaguing the city – despite historic lows –  follows his use of the military in his administration’s growing immigration crackdown.

“(D.C.’s) out of control, but we’re going to put it in control very quickly, like we did on the southern border,” Trump said at a Monday press conference where he was flanked by members of his Cabinet, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He vowed to do the same in more cities governed by Democrats.

Trump’s return to the White House was led by a campaign promise of mass deportations, tying newly arrived immigrants at the southern border with high crime rates and the need to use troops to detain and remove those migrants.

Since Inauguration Day, the president has sent thousands of National Guard members to be stationed at the U.S.-Mexico border and has militarized strips of land along the border, putting migrants into contact with military personnel.

Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard in June in response to unrest over immigration raids was seen as a test case for use of the state-based military forces. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California wrote on X on Monday that Trump “was just getting warmed up in Los Angeles” with that order.

“He will gaslight his way into militarizing any city he wants in America,” Newsom said. “This is what dictators do.”

‘Quick Reaction Force’

Now the Trump administration is evaluating plans to establish a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” composed of 600 National Guard members to remain on stand-by in order to be quickly deployed to any U.S. city undergoing a protest or other civil unrest within an hour, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The groups, who would be armed with riot gear and other weapons, would be split evenly between Alabama and Arizona, according to the Post.

The DOD proposal also calls for a rotation of service members from Army and Air Force National Guard units based in Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Tennessee, according to the Post.

National Guard members are typically in reserve and are some of the first responders to natural disasters.

The Department of Defense and the National Guard did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment about the “Quick Reaction Force” plans. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Which cities are next?

At the Monday press conference, Trump specifically cited four cities that could see similar National Guard movements: Baltimore, Chicago, New York City and Oakland – all heavily Democratic cities led by Black mayors. Violent crime in all those cities has continued to trend downward, according to each city’s police database.

Baltimore County, Maryland, Cook County, Illinois, New York City and the entire state of California also all are on a new “sanctuary jurisdiction” list issued by the Department of Justice on Aug. 5. They are identified as “having policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

But, unlike the district, where the president has control over the National Guard, state governors, under the law, have had control over their National Guard members.

Additionally, while Trump has seized control of the 3,400 officers in the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department for 29 days due to the district’s Home Rule Act, experts don’t see how that can legally be done with other local police departments.

“What they are doing in D.C. cannot be replicated outside of D.C. All of this is only possible because D.C. is not a state,” said Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. “There’s no playbook for them to do what they seem to want to do outside of D.C.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified Trump’s statements about sending in National Guard members into cities.

“The president is speaking about what he’d like to see take place in other cities across the country,” she said. “When the time comes we’ll talk about that. Starting with our nation’s capital is a great place to begin and it should serve as a model.”

Trump said he hoped other cities were “watching.”

“Maybe they’ll self clean up and maybe they’ll self do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem,” the president said.

Nunn said that even if the president were to federalize a state’s National Guard, those members would be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally bars the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

“There is no statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act that allows the military to participate in local law enforcement,” Nunn said.

Los Angeles

A trial is underway this week challenging the president’s move to federalize California National Guard members, in a suit filed by Newsom, after an appeals court temporarily upheld Trump’s move.

The president deployed 4,000 members of the National Guard and 700 Marines to Los Angeles after protests erupted against aggressive immigration actions by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducting raids in Home Depot parking lots.

But the legal issue before a San Francisco court is not if the president’s actions were unlawful, but on the political question of who has authority over the National Guard.

Other governors in the states Trump mentioned as candidates for National Guard activation pushed back on the notion.

Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who served in the U.S. Army, said in a statement that the president’s decision to call in the National Guard to the District of Columbia “lacks seriousness and is deeply dangerous.”

Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that the president could not send in the National Guard to Chicago.

“Let’s not lie to the public, you and I both know you have no authority to take over Chicago,” he said.

The conflict between Trump and the Democrats comes at the same time Newsom has threatened to launch a redistricting of California’s congressional districts in order to nullify Texas’ attempt to redraw maps to add more Republican seats to the U.S. House.

And Pritzker is hosting in Illinois the Texas Democrats who left the state to prevent the state legislature from having a quorum after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session for redistricting.

Military forces

Since taking office for his second term, the president has signed five executive orders that lay out the use of military forces within the U.S. borders and extend other executive powers to speed up Trump’s immigration crackdown.

More funding also soon will be at hand for Trump’s mass deportations. The massive tax and spending cut bill enacted in July has as its centerpiece $170 billion for the administration’s immigration crackdown. It bolsters border security, increases immigration detention capacity and adds fees to legal pathways for immigration, among other things. Thousands more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are slated to be hired.

Some Republican governors have agreed to deploy their own National Guard members to aid the Trump administration in immigration enforcement, such as in Iowa and Tennessee. The secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, sent National Guard to the southern border in Texas when she was governor of South Dakota.

Nunn said that while it’s not typically normal for states to use National Guard members for local policing there is some precedent, such as when New York had members stationed in the New York City subway.

“What is unprecedented is the federal government using military personnel for sort of crime prevention, for regular policing,” Nunn said.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, left, and Texas Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, right, listen as Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu speaks to reporters during a press conference at the DuPage County Democratic Party headquarters on Aug. 3, 2025 in Carol Stream, Illinois. Wu was with a group of Democratic Texas lawmakers who left the state so a quorum could not be reached during a special session called to redistrict the state. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Fueled by President Donald Trump’s aims to bolster the U.S. House’s razor-thin GOP majority in the 2026 midterm elections, a rare mid-decade redistricting fight in Texas grew increasingly bitter in recent days and engulfed other states.

As Democratic legislators in the Lone Star State fled to block a new congressional map, a handful of both blue and red states eyed their own redistricting plans, lawsuits cropped up and members of Congress pledged bills to curb redistricting wars.

While Texas is the only state that has so far taken formal action to redraw its U.S. House lines, a full-blown arms race could be imminent.

Here’s a breakdown on the redistricting battle as the drama unfolds:

How did all of this interest in redistricting kick off?

Republicans in Texas drew a new congressional map at the urging of Trump that could give the GOP five crucial new congressional seats in 2026.

Midterm elections typically lead to the loss of congressional seats for a president’s party. 

Meanwhile, the GOP currently holds 219 seats in the House, while Democrats hold 212 spots, with four vacancies. That extremely narrow majority has created immense challenges for U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, as he tries to enact Trump’s sweeping agenda and cater to the president’s demands as well as factions in the GOP conference.

Though congressional districts are typically redrawn every decade following each U.S. Census, the move, particularly in Texas, is not unprecedented and is allowed.

What’s going on in Texas?

Texas Republicans unveiled a draft of the new congressional map in late July, which looks to reshape and flip major metro areas’ districts held by Democrats.

According to The Texas Tribune, the Department of Justice sent Texas’ leaders a letter in early July that said four of its districts violate the U.S. Constitution. The proposed map would dismantle those districts, per the Tribune.

More than 50 of Texas’ Democratic legislators left the state to try to block the legislature from adopting the new map, according to the Tribune.

This move has drawn the ire of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who went so far as to file a lawsuit asking to remove the Texas House Democratic Caucus chair, state Rep. Gene Wu, after Wu left the state.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also said Tuesday that he will pursue a court ruling that declares the seats vacant for the House Democrats who do not return by Friday.

Texas GOP U.S. Sen. John Cornyn has also called on the FBI “to take any appropriate steps to aid in Texas state law enforcement efforts to locate or arrest potential lawbreakers who have fled the state.” Trump on Tuesday, asked by a reporter if the FBI should “get involved,” said, “Well, they may have to.”

How is California reacting?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been among the most vocal Democratic governors in suggesting retaliating against Texas Republicans by redrawing his populous blue state’s own lines before the 2026 elections.

State laws in California and other Democratic states make mid-decade redistricting tougher than it is in Texas.

While pro-democracy groups have praised California’s nonpartisan commission as the “gold standard” of independent redistricting, Newsom has indicated he would ask state lawmakers to temporarily scrap it to join the arms race he says Trump started in Texas.

At a Monday press conference, Newsom justified his exploration of mid-decade redistricting in the Golden State by describing Trump’s recent and historic record as anti-democratic.

“These folks don’t play by the rules,” Newsom said. “If they can’t win playing the game with the existing set of rules, they’ll change the rules. That’s what Donald Trump has done … Here is someone who tried to break this country, tried to light democracy on fire on Jan. 6. He recognizes he’s going to lose in the midterms.”

What other states are looking at potentially redistricting?

Vice President JD Vance is slated to visit Indiana Thursday in an attempt to push redistricting, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

Indiana GOP Gov. Mike Braun said that as of now, no commitments have been made, when asked about redistricting efforts in the Hoosier State, per the Capital Chronicle.

Leaders of large Democratic states, in addition to California, are considering their own redistricting in response to Texas.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote in an op-ed published in the Houston Chronicle Tuesday that she would “not sit on the sidelines” and watch “Republicans dismantle democracy.”

“What Texas is doing isn’t a clever strategy, it’s political arson — torching our democracy to cling to power,” Hochul wrote. “The only viable recourse is to fight fire with fire.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker appeared alongside Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin and a group of exiled Texas Democratic lawmakers at a news conference Tuesday. Pritzker said it was “possible” the state would pursue redistricting, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Other Democratic governors — even including Laura Kelly of ruby-red Kansas — raised the prospect during a Democratic Governors Association meeting in Wisconsin last week of pursuing mid-decade redistricting if Texas follows through.

Republican states are also considering jumping in the fray.

Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican, told a news radio station last week that it was “likely” lawmakers would convene in a special session to redraw district lines after pressure from Trump.

And Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican who holds the most competitive of Nebraska’s three U.S. House seats but plans to step down, told the Nebraska Examiner that Republicans in the state were having conversations about potential redistricting.

What downside do some see?

An arms race to shorten the cycle for redrawing congressional lines could come at a cost for efforts to overhaul the redistricting process.

Common Cause, a national pro-democracy group that advocates for election reforms including nonpartisan redistricting, urged Democrats not to respond to Texas.

A redistricting arms race would only result in “rigged elections across America,” Emily Eby French, the policy director for Common Cause Texas, said on a press call last week. It was wrong for Republicans to put “a thumb on the scale” through redistricting, she said, but also wrong for Democrats to do the same.

“The real solution is for Democrats to help us lift the Republican thumb off of the Texas scale and every other scale in America until we reach free and fair elections for everyone.”

Are party leaders egging this on?

Trump, whose urging appeared to prompt Texas Republicans to action, has consistently pushed lawmakers in that state to reinforce the GOP advantage there.

Tuesday, he said on CNBC that Republicans were “entitled” to five more House seats in Texas.

Martin, the DNC chair, responded in Illinois.

“No party is entitled to any district,” he said. “We have to go out and earn the votes.”

Still, Martin advised Democrats in blue states to do the opposite by responding in kind to Texas Republicans.

In an interview with States Newsroom last week, Martin suggested Democratic states drop any commitment to nonpartisan redistricting in response to Texas.

“We’re not here to tie one of our hands behind our back,” he said. “We can’t be the only party that’s playing by the rules.”

How is Congress reacting?

At least two GOP House lawmakers — representing blue states looking at retaliatory redistricting efforts against Trump — are taking it upon themselves to introduce bills in Congress that bar these initiatives.

GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley of California introduced a bill in the House this week that would ban mid-decade redistricting across the country.

Kiley said Newsom “is trying to subvert the will of voters and do lasting damage to democracy in California,” in a statement earlier this week.

“Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters using its authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.”

Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, also said he plans to introduce legislation to prohibit “partisan gerrymandering and mid-decade redistricting.”

The New York Republican told CNN on Tuesday that “this is fundamentally why Congress is broken,” adding that “you do not have competitive districts and so, most members are focused on primaries and not actually engaging in a general election.”