Democrats caught in a contradiction over National Guard deployment in New Mexico

Since June, and without much fanfare, dozens of National Guard soldiers in Albuquerque, the capital and largest city of New Mexico, have been listening to police communications, monitoring traffic cameras, and helping secure crime scene perimeters. These are not the typical duties of a military force designed as a locally deployable contingent, usually used to support natural disasters or emergency situations, but they are responding to an explicit request from the local police.

At the same time, in Washington, D.C., the presence of National Guard troops ordered by President Donald Trump last week to address an alleged crime crisis has drawn strong criticism from the Democratic opposition as well as protests from the city’s residents.

The deployment of 60 to 70 personnel in Albuquerque was originally requested in April by the city police, who, in an emergency petition, cited the “fentanyl epidemic and rising youth violence” as critical problems requiring immediate intervention. Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham approved the request, and a week ago, just as the National Guard arrived in Washington, she signed a declaration of a state of emergency for the northern part of the state, allowing her to mobilize more troops there if necessary.

President Trump, on the other hand, ordered 800 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. without any prior request from local authorities, citing the oft-repeated security crisis that is not backed by statistics. In response to this troop mobilization and the attempt to take direct control of the local Washington police, Democrats nationwide denounced what they consider an illegal and dangerous use of the troops. Similar criticism arose when Trump sent thousands of National Guard personnel to California in June during protests against his immigration agenda.

In a statement condemning the president’s unilateral action in Washington, Governor Grisham and the mayor of Albuquerque warned “Trump’s massive executive overreach in Washington sets a dangerous precedent and undermines safety in our nation’s capital.”

Foreseeing potential accusations of hypocrisy for taking the same action as Trump, they emphasized the differences between the two situations. “The contrast couldn’t be clearer: while President Trump uses the National Guard to trample local leadership, New Mexico brings together local and state governments to make our communities genuinely safer,” said the statement.

Washington Attorney General Brian Schwalb, for his part, has said he considers the military intervention unnecessary and noted that crime in the capital has recently fallen to historic lows. Trump, however, has suggested extending the measure to other major Democratic-run cities, such as Chicago, New York, and again Los Angeles, despite independent reports also showing sustained drops in crime in all three during 2025.

One of the key issues in the dispute is who controls the National Guard. In each state, governors act as commander-in-chief of their troops, while in the District of Columbia that authority falls directly to the president. This legal difference explains why Trump was able to deploy soldiers in the capital without a request. However, if he declares a state of emergency, he can take control of a given state’s National Guard, as he did in Los Angeles in June.

This, in turn, fuels controversy over the scope of the Posse Comitatus Act, which since 1878 has prohibited the Army from performing domestic policing functions. This debate has reached the courts: a California court is currently reviewing arguments over whether sending soldiers to Los Angeles violated the law. The Posse Comitatus Act also reserves public safety to the states, but its wording — as with many ambiguous laws in the U.S. legal system — allows for multiple interpretations. The most concerned critics see in the president’s actions a dangerous precedent for the federal government to begin using troops for local security matters.

In New Mexico, consequently, the official narrative seeks to distance itself from Trump’s order in Washington. In press releases and statements, local authorities have emphasized that the troops deployed in Albuquerque do not patrol in camouflage uniforms or carry weapons, but wear polos, without rifles or authority to make arrests. Their role, they insist, is limited to support tasks: guarding crime scenes, monitoring traffic, and assisting with logistics.

In Washington, the federal government has said something similar, yet the dozens of daily arrests since the troops’ arrival and the presence of tanks and soldiers with automatic rifles on the capital’s streets have heightened tensions that reassuring words are seeking to calm.

Furthermore, while the use of the National Guard in Washington responds to an ostensibly fabricated crime crisis, in New Mexico it responds to a tangible and growing pressure. Rio Arriba County, recently declared in emergency, has the highest overdose death rate in the state, and Albuquerque is facing a surge in youth violence directly linked to fentanyl trafficking.

On the surface, the soldiers currently patrolling Washington and Albuquerque perform similar tasks: maintaining a presence on the streets, providing logistical support to local police, and guarding sensitive sites. However, the context, legal limits, and relationship with local civilian authorities create a political divide that has become yet another partisan flashpoint.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition