Internal Pentagon documents obtained by The Washington Post detail a Trump administration proposal to create a permanent “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” that could be rapidly deployed to U.S. cities in cases of “domestic civil unrest” as defined by the president. The plan, which has not been previously reported, comes just one day after President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., and announced a federal takeover of the city’s police department.
The proposal calls for 600 National Guard troops to be on standby at all times, able to deploy within as little as one hour. The force would be split into two groups of 300, stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with responsibility for regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively. According to the documents, the first 100 troops would be ready to move within one hour, the second wave within two hours, and the third within 12 hours, or all immediately if placed on high alert. Rotations would last 90 days to “limit burnout.”
Cost projections show the mission could cost hundreds of millions of dollars if military aircraft and aircrews were kept on constant standby. The documents also outline a lower-cost alternative of transporting troops via commercial airlines such as Southwest and American Airlines, noting this could allow personnel to travel “in a more subdued status” and reduce the visible military presence in “destination” cities.
The plan would rely on Title 32 status, under which troops remain under their state governor’s control but are federally funded and allowed greater latitude in participating in law enforcement missions. The documents acknowledge the potential for political friction if a governor refused to cooperate with the Pentagon.
While most National Guard units have fast-response teams for emergencies within their own states, the proposed force represents a shift toward a pre-positioned, interstate deployment capability. The National Guard tested a similar concept ahead of the 2020 election, placing 600 troops on alert in Arizona and Alabama amid fears of political violence.
Civil liberties advocates and legal experts have expressed alarm over the proposal. Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice who specializes in the domestic use of the U.S. military, warned, “You don’t want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement. You don’t want to normalize routine domestic deployment.” He added, “When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you’re going to want to use it. It actually makes it more likely that you’re going to see domestic deployments—because why else have a task force?”
Wisconsin State Rep. Chris Larson, a Democrat, criticized the plan in stark terms. “The U.S. military should never be used against peaceful civilians,” Larson said. “The criminal president who thinks it’s cool can f*ck all the way off.”
Critics see the plan as part of a broader pattern of increased domestic military use during Trump’s presidency. Earlier this year, over the objections of California’s governor and other Democrats, Trump dispatched more than 5,000 National Guard members and active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area under an insurrection authority, citing the need to protect federal personnel and property during protests over immigration policy. Many of the deployed troops later participated in unrelated activities, including a raid on a marijuana farm more than 100 miles away. Trump has also sent thousands of troops to the southern border in an effort to deter migration.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore’s spokesperson, Carter Elliot, said the decision to deploy the National Guard during emergencies should remain with governors and Guard leadership. “There is a well-established procedure that exists to request additional assistance during times of need,” Elliot said, “and the Trump administration is blatantly and dangerously ignoring that precedent.”
Some experts question whether there is any immediate need for such a force. Lindsay P. Cohn, an associate professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, said, “This is really strange because essentially nothing is happening. Crime is going down. We don’t have major protests or civil disturbances. There is no significant resistance from states” to federal immigration policies. “There is very little evidence anything big is likely to happen soon,” she said, stressing that she was speaking in her personal capacity and not representing her employer.
National Guard planning documents reviewed by The Post list several potential negative consequences of the plan, including reduced availability for local emergencies such as wildfires and hurricanes, personnel fatigue and burnout, accelerated wear and tear on equipment, disruption to training and core mission readiness, and political backlash. The documents also warn that short-notice deployments could create coordination problems for state and local governments.
One official cited in the documents opposed the idea of relying on military aviation for troop transport, pointing to the burden of constant inspections and aircrew readiness. The official argued for commercial flights, noting that the associated spending on hotels and meals would benefit “large and thriving cities of the United States” while keeping movements less conspicuous.
The earliest the program could be formally created and funded through the Pentagon’s budget would be fiscal year 2027, though alternative funding could allow for earlier implementation. It remains unclear whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reviewed the proposal.
For opponents, the concern is less about the logistics and more about the precedent. As Nunn warned, “It actually makes it more likely that you’re going to see domestic deployments—because why else have a task force?”
COMMENTS