Donald Trump has targeted Memphis as the next American city where National Guard troops will be deployed, part of a growing trend under his administration, as the president recently announced, claiming that this time he has local and state buy-in for the intervention.
As leaders in the city and other Tennessee officials respond to the news, their reactions appear mixed.
Trump announces Memphis as next for federal troop intervention
“We’re going to Memphis,” President Donald Trump said Friday morning during a Fox News appearance. Trump said the second-largest city in Tennessee will be the next to have federal troops enter, ostensibly to assist in crime-fighting activities.
“Memphis is deeply troubled,” Trump claimed, using the justification of fighting crime that he has employed for sending troops to other cities. Trump claimed that both Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, and Memphis Mayor Paul Young support the measure.
“The mayor is happy. He’s a Democrat. And the governor is happy.” Although Trump did not provide specifics about how many troops might be sent to the city, when the intervention would happen or how long it would endure, Trump clarified that the deployment would consist of National Guard troops and could include other military forces as well.
Mixed reactions from Memphis and Tennessee officials
Although Trump presented the Memphis intervention as having local and state support, there are mixed reactions from leading figures in the city and state. Lee has stated that he and the Trump administration have been in “constant communication” regarding efforts to combat crime in Memphis. While not directly confirming a plan to send the National Guard into the city, Lee said, “Nothing is off the table.”
Young released a statement in response to reports about the potential intervention.
“I am committed to working to ensure any efforts strengthen our community and build on our progress,” he said, emphasizing, “What we need most are financial resources for intervention and prevention, additional patrol officers, and case support to strengthen MPD’s investigations.”
Meanwhile, Lee Harris, the mayor of Shelby County, which includes Memphis, was more critical, urging Lee to “please reconsider, if this is on the table.” He applauded earlier efforts by the governor to send state troopers to assist law enforcement in Memphis. Still, he said that “to have individuals with military fatigues, semi-automatic weapons and armored vehicles patrolling our streets is way too far, anti-democratic and anti-American.”
Federal interventions continue as local and state responses vary
The potential intervention into Memphis is the latest example of Trump’s recent tactic of sending federal troops into major, Democratic-controlled cities under the guise of fighting crime or enforcing harsh immigration enforcement. Trump’s intervention in Los Angeles drew significant opposition from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who filed a lawsuit, leading to a recent ruling that some National Guard actions in the city violated federal law against the military enforcement of domestic law. A proposed intervention into Chicago drew vocal opposition from Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. By contrast, Trump’s police takeover of Washington, D.C., which operates under federal authority, has seen Mayor Muriel Bowser adopt a more cooperative stance with federal agencies as National Guard troops remain in the city. Trump has reportedly sought to focus on cities where he can gain local and state cooperation. After opposition from Chicago, he considered intervening in New Orleans, located within the Republican-controlled state of Louisiana, before choosing Memphis. Notably, Trump’s anti-crime interventions have so far only targeted Black-led cities.
As Trump modifies his approach while continuing this overall strategy of federal intervention, Memphis may become a key case for determining how this tactic continues. As Trump considers Memphis for his latest intervention, the president faces a range of reactions from relevant local and state leaders, from broad cooperation to outright opposition.