Ohio's National Guard shouldn't be in D.C.

If any governor should know the risks of sending the National Guard to police an American city, it should be the governor of Ohio. Everyone in Ohio knows what happened on May 4, 1970, when National Guard troops opened fire on anti-war protesters at Kent State University. Four protesters were killed and nine others wounded, including one who was paralyzed from the waist down. We know that Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine knows about the Kent State shootings because he's talked about them during his lengthy political career, including in 2020, when he ordered flags in the state lowered to half-staff to mark the shootings' anniversary. He also held a moment of silence during a pandemic news conference. "Today is the 50th anniversary of the tragedy at Kent State," DeWine, a Republican, said at the time. "A very sad day in Ohio history." Unfortunately, the memory of Kent State wasn't enough to deter DeWine from sending 150 Ohio National Guard troops to support President Donald Trump's takeover of policing in Washington, D.C. In a news release Saturday night, DeWine said he had done so at the request of the secretary of the Army. "Ohio National Guard members will carry out presence patrols and serve as added security," DeWine said. "None of these military police members are currently serving as law enforcement officers in the state of Ohio." DeWine intended that last line to reassure Ohioans that the deployment wouldn't weaken police protection in the Buckeye State. After all, three Ohio cities — Cleveland, Dayton and Toledo — have higher violent crime rates than Washington, according to FBI data. It's doubtful that DeWine would welcome what is essentially an occupying force of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement agents on the streets of those cities or any other Ohio community. As of this writing, National Guard troops deployed in D.C. weren't carrying weapons, but there was reporting that that could change. Sending the National Guard out with weapons would increase the risk of dangerously escalating the situation and heightening tensions with D.C. residents, most of whom oppose Trump's takeover. Yes, as supporters of the takeover would no doubt point out, arrests have been made and illegal weapons seized. However, one person arrested was charged with a felony for throwing a sandwich, hardly a dangerous weapon, at a federal law enforcement officer. The legality of Trump's actions will be sorted out in the courts, but he does seem to have at least the authority to take control of law enforcement in the city for 30 days under emergency powers found in the 1973 Home Rule Act, which gave local officials more control over city affairs. Anything beyond 30 days, however, would require congressional approval, something Democrats in the Senate would likely filibuster. (Trump's minions are no doubt looking for a way around that pesky law.) The ostensible reason for the crackdown was the attempted carjacking of a former U.S. DOGE Service employee on Aug. 3, but Trump hadn't exactly made a secret of his desire to exert more control over deep-blue Washington. Trump has portrayed the nation's capital as beset by out-of-control crime. This despite statistics showing that violent crime has dropped in D.C. Yes, crime remains an issue in D.C. and beyond, but the proper way to address it is through cooperation among local, state and federal authorities. Trump's decision to seize control, deploy military troops and roust homeless encampments is a surefire way to alienate the populace he claims to want to protect. (He also didn't seem all that concerned about violent crime when he pardoned or commuted the sentences of those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.) On Monday, DeWine defended his decision to join other Republican governors in sending National Guard troops to D.C., pointing out that he'd sent troops to cities run by Democrats to help deal with protests. "This is very consistent with what I've done for the last six and a half years," DeWine said. "Whether it's Democrat or Republican, I don't care. We want to support the local community." Except that DeWine isn't sending troops to help with crowd control at a protest or to assist in the wake of natural disaster. He's sending them to police American civilians and further Trump's political agenda, which includes normalizing the deployment of military troops on the streets of American communities even when local leaders don't want them there. D.C.'s leaders didn't want the troops, nor did California's leaders want the National Guard and active-duty Marines deployed in Los Angeles earlier this year in response to protests, some of which got out of hand, over immigration raids. National Guard troops rightly enjoy a good reputation for stepping in to help their fellow Americans when disaster strikes. We don't believe the troops sent to D.C. have ill intent, but one bad encounter, especially if troops are armed, could shatter the National Guard's reputation and lead to another "sad day," as DeWine might put it.