Will Indiana National Guard be called upon to fight crime?

After several Republican-controlled states sent some of their National Guard troops to assist President Donald Trump’s fight against crime in Washington, D.C., last month, it is still unclear whether Indiana Gov. Mike Braun would be willing to mobilize state soldiers to join the president’s crusade against “out of control” crime in other states.

The president, who has made it clear that he is more than willing to take local law enforcement into his own hands after he deployed federal troops into D.C., has signaled a desire to step outside the nation’s capital and move across the country, targeting crime in Democrat-controlled cities like Chicago and, most recently, Memphis.

And while Braun has generally indicated in the past that he would support a presidential request to help fight crime, he has not explicitly said that he would be willing to send Indiana National Guard troops to other states for that purpose.

Braun also has suggested stepped-up state police efforts in Indianapolis if local authorities aren’t “doing the job.” However, he has not suggested the Indiana National Guard be used for such a crime-fighting purpose.

Braun’s track record

Earlier this spring, Braun deployed the Indiana National Guard to the southern border for a second time, following their first 10-month deployment authorized by former Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb last year, which cost the state about $8 million.

The newest deployment is scheduled for 12 months and is expected to cost $9 million, according to a report by the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

And this month, Braun mobilized about 40 state soldiers and airmen to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement by providing administrative, transportation and logistics support at locations across the state. According to Lauren Houck, the chief communications officer for the Indiana National Guard, the Guard’s tasks do not include conducting law enforcement functions or making arrests.

Houck did not directly respond to questions about the potential of mobilizing troops to fight out-of-state crime, but she did say in an email that the Guard has no tasking or orders to support ICE outside Indiana.

Trump’s moves

Trump first mobilized troops in June against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a staunch opponent to the president, by putting the California National Guard under his federal jurisdiction.

Following a series of immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, public protests ensued, with groups of people trying to prevent ICE from completing one of its enforcement actions and vandalizing property.

Although the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department responded to the protests and maintained control of the situation, according to court documents, Trump issued a memorandum on June 7, in which he called the National Guard into federal service to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.”

But Newsom and the state of California sued the president, claiming that federalizing the National Guard violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, a law that prohibits federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement except when explicitly authorized by law.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California ruled that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth violated federal law, saying the troops’ actions during their deployment exceeded what the law allows.

“There was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law,” Breyer wrote in a 52-page opinion, adding, “The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles.”

Breyer’s ruling did not order a withdrawal of the remaining troops in Los Angeles; rather, they must only perform the actions allowed by law.

“Federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act,” he wrote.

Trump refocused his efforts and aimed closer to home.

In mid-August, after the White House declared a “crime emergency” in the nation’s capital, Trump deployed the National Guard to patrol—and literally clean up—the city’s streets.

In the weeks that followed, six red states volunteered their own troops to support the D.C. crime fight: Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia.

What crime looks like around the country

Washington, D.C., appears to be just the beginning for Trump’s “national police force,” as Breyer put it.

Trump signed an order on Sept. 15, sending the U.S. National Guard to Memphis, just a few days after he announced that the city was next on his radar.

“I’ll be the first to say it right now, again, we’re going to Memphis,” Trump said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” on Sept. 12.

The president had originally indicated he would aim to crack down on crime in Indiana’s neighbor, Chicago, which has recently seen declining violent crime rates. But that effort seems to be shelved for the time being, according to a report by CNN.

Memphis, a Democratic-led city within the GOP-led state of Tennessee, has experienced recent declines in many offenses, but according to the Council on Criminal Justice, the homicide and motor vehicle theft rates remained well above 2019 levels.

According to security.org, among U.S. cities in 2024, Memphis had the highest violent crime rate with a total rate of 2,501.3 per 100,000; a 596% difference from the national rate.

Notably, Indianapolis took the ninth spot in that same ranking, with a violent crime rate of 877.9; a 144% difference from the national rate.

Following Trump’s deployment to D.C., the capital city has witnessed a decline in reported crime.

According to public data from the Metropolitan Police Department in D.C., in the first three weeks of the federal takeover, reported violent crime incidents dropped by 10% from the previous three-week period, and reported property crime incidents fell by 25%.

How could Indiana mobilize troops?

The vision statement for the Indiana National Guard explicitly states that its purpose is for “state” and “international missions,” and that its intention is on “putting our people first.”

Indiana National Guard tasks do not include conducting law enforcement functions or making arrests, a spokesperson for the agency told The Lawyer.

According to the state constitution, Gov. Braun holds the highest authority when dispatching the guard and can call out state forces to “execute the laws” or to “suppress insurrection or to repel invasion.”

Indiana Code 10-16-7-7 expands on the uses of the guard, including for war, public disaster, breach of the peace or imminent danger of breach of the peace, forcible obstruction of the execution of the laws or reasonable belief that the execution of the laws will be obstructed and “at any other time the governor considers necessary.”

Although those do not explicitly permit sending troops to other states, governors can request additional resources outside their state through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, or EMAC, which is a national mutual aid partnership agreement allowing state-to-state aid during state or federally declared emergencies, according to the National Guard.

Passed into law in 1996, EMAC provides governors with the means to quickly call for assistance, including other states’ guardsmen, for any type of emergency, including, but not limited to, damage assessment, public health, logistics support, security and community outreach.

When Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee deployed the state’s National Guard members to help with Trump’s takeover of Washington, D.C., his office cited Title 32, a federal law that allows the president or defense secretary to federally activate the Guard under federal funding while still remaining under the command of their state’s governor.

According to EMAC, a state’s National Guard deploys through EMAC in both state active duty and Title 32 to assist other states.

What do voters think?

According to a recent CBS News national poll, a majority of Americans (58%) are opposed to the president deploying National Guard troops to other cities, and an even greater majority (61%) were opposed to the idea of Trump deploying guardsmen to their own local area.

“The majority of Americans are opposed, though, and those who are, tend to feel their own rights and freedoms would be less secure as a result,” according to CBS. “They do not think it would be effective at reducing crime or make them any safer.”•