President Donald Trump has announced plans to deploy the National Guard to Memphis, Tennessee, as part of his administration's ongoing efforts to address crime in major US cities. The announcement, made during a recent television appearance, signals an escalation of federal involvement in local law enforcement.

Trump described Memphis as "deeply troubled" and stated his intention to "straighten that out." He even suggested the potential involvement of the military if deemed necessary, indicating a strong commitment to addressing the perceived issues in the city.

Interestingly, Trump claimed that both the Governor of Tennessee, Bill Lee, and the Mayor of Memphis, Paul Young, a Democrat, are supportive of the decision. This bipartisan support, if accurate, could be crucial for the successful implementation of the National Guard deployment.

Trump drew a parallel to his administration's actions in Washington, D.C., implying a similar approach to address crime in Memphis. He asserted that they "fixed" the situation in D.C., suggesting a belief in their ability to replicate that success in Tennessee.

Adding a touch of local color, Trump acknowledged Memphis as a "great music city, home of Elvis," seemingly attempting to balance the serious nature of the deployment with an appreciation for the city's cultural significance.

Perhaps surprisingly, Trump revealed that his decision regarding Memphis was influenced by a conversation with the head of Union Pacific, who also serves on the board of FedEx. This executive reportedly expressed concerns about safety in Memphis, citing the need for an armored vehicle and bulletproof glass for a short commute.

Memphis is indeed grappling with significant crime challenges. Reports indicate that it has one of the highest homicide rates in the nation for 2024. Furthermore, the city's violent crime rate is alarmingly high, with approximately 9,400 incidents per 100,000 residents.

However, Memphis wasn't the only city suggested to President Trump for potential National Guard deployment. St. Louis, Missouri, was also mentioned as a city in need of intervention, according to the same Union Pacific executive.

The executive reportedly told Trump that St. Louis had been "badly hit" and was experiencing a "very, very hard" time, implying that the city was struggling with significant crime issues and could benefit from federal assistance.

The potential deployment of federal resources raises complex questions about the relationship between federal and local law enforcement. Under what circumstances can the federal government take control of a city's police force?

Generally, the president can assert control if local order breaks down or with the approval of city officials. In Washington, D.C., federal law grants Congress and the president oversight of the police under specific regulations.

One possibility is the temporary appointment of a federal official to oversee the local police department. This would give the federal government direct influence over law enforcement strategies and operations.

The coordination between federal police agencies (like the FBI, DEA, and Secret Service) and the National Guard is also crucial. Federal agents can assist or lead law enforcement efforts, while the National Guard can be deployed to support or restore order.

When the National Guard is federalized, it operates under federal command, although it typically does not engage in regular policing duties. Clear lines of communication and coordinated strategies are essential to avoid duplication of effort and ensure effective collaboration.

Before settling on Memphis, Trump indicated a preference for deploying the National Guard to Chicago, citing it as one of the nation's most violent cities. However, local political opposition has hindered his ability to take action there.

Chicago's Mayor, Brandon Johnson, even signed an executive order, presumably blocking city police from cooperating with National Guard troops or federal agents, highlighting the resistance to federal intervention in the city.

Adding fuel to the fire, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker challenged Trump's authority to take over Chicago, asserting that the president lacked the legal basis for such action. This exemplifies the ongoing tension between the federal government and some local leaders regarding law enforcement strategies.

Looking back, in August 2025, Trump initiated a similar crackdown in Washington, D.C., deploying troops to the nation's capital. This intervention reportedly led to numerous arrests on the first day alone, related to offenses such as homicide, firearms violations, and drug possession with intent to distribute.

Trump characterized D.C. as a "sanctuary city for criminals," a phrase often used to describe cities with policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It was also reported that a significant percentage of the arrests were immigration-related, suggesting a focus on immigration enforcement during the D.C. crackdown.

The president's actions have drawn criticism from local leaders who argue that his interventions are unnecessary and politically motivated. For example, Baltimore's mayor, Brandon Scott, asserted that his city is the safest it has been in over 50 years, citing a significant drop in homicides.

Scott further highlighted that homicide rates in Baltimore had reached their lowest level on record, contradicting Trump's narrative of widespread crime and disorder. These conflicting perspectives underscore the complexities and controversies surrounding federal intervention in local law enforcement matters.

The unfolding situation in Memphis and the ongoing debates surrounding federal involvement in local crime present a crucial dialogue about the balance of power, law enforcement strategies, and the roles and responsibilities of various levels of government in addressing the complex challenges facing American cities.