Hegseth Authorizes National Guard in D.C. to Carry Weapons

In a significant escalation of federal security measures in the nation’s capital, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has issued an order authorizing National Guard troops deployed in Washington, D.C. to carry their service-issued weapons when required for their mission. This marks a notable shift in posture, as the troops were originally mobilized for non-armed support roles. The new directive sets the stage for enhanced security operations in the days ahead.

What’s Changing

Nearly 2,000 National Guard members—including personnel from D.C. and several Republican-led states—are now authorized to bear arms while on duty. Previously, these troops were unarmed, serving mainly in protective and logistical capacities. The updated guidance permits them to carry firearms in accordance with their training and mission needs, though they remain restricted from making arrests. Instead, they may detain individuals temporarily before handing them over to law enforcement.

Context & Background

This move occurs under the backdrop of President Trump’s broader "law enforcement crackdown" in Washington, D.C., including the rare invocation of a crime emergency authority that temporarily places federal control over the city’s police department. City and federal crime data, however, indicate that violent crime is currently at historic lows.

With this policy shift, the National Guard’s roles may expand to include more visible security patrols in crime-sensitive neighborhoods. Nonetheless, legal constraints—such as the Posse Comitatus Act—continue to limit their direct law enforcement powers.

Reactions & Controversy

Supporters argue that arming the Guard boosts deterrence and enhances safety amid federal efforts to assist local law enforcement. Critics, however, have raised concerns about the appropriateness of militarized forces operating in civilian spaces, especially given their limited training for law enforcement interactions.

Why It Matters

• Security posturing: Authorizing arms signals a stronger posture in federal intervention within the district.

• Legal nuance: Operators remain bound by law; they cannot conduct arrests but can perform temporary detentions.

• Political implications: The move intensifies debate about federal overreach in a jurisdiction where home rule is typically the norm.

• Public trust: Balancing visible security with civil liberties remains a sensitive and high-stakes challenge.

Conclusion

Defense Secretary Hegseth’s order marks a pivotal moment in the federal government's approach to securing Washington, D.C.—elevating military readiness in support of public safety, while walking a tightrope between enforcement effectiveness and civil constraint. The unfolding deployment may shape the national conversation on the role of armed forces in urban law enforcement.