Topic: US News
Posted 1 week ago
Louisiana's political conversation around public safety is intensifying as Gov. Jeff Landry, a Trump ally, requests federal support to combat crime in New Orleans and other cities. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Landry asked for up to 1,000 National Guard troops through fiscal year 2026, signaling a broader push that mirrors a growing national pattern—deployments of federal troops to major urban centers to “fight crime.”
Landry’s request, described as a continuation of the “proven success” of deployments to Washington and Memphis, comes amid a larger arc of actions announced by the Trump administration. The plan has already seen troops deployed to Los Angeles, with discussions and plans floated for Chicago and Portland, Oregon. Landry framed the move as a partnership: “Federal partnerships in our toughest cities have worked, and now, with the support of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, we are taking the next step by bringing in the National Guard.”
Democratic leaders and officials in several states have pushed back, arguing that military deployments are not a cure for crime and can erode trust in communities already bearing the brunt of structural inequities. In Oregon, elected officials have publicly questioned the need for troops in Portland. The Louisiana request specifically notes “elevated violent crime rates” in Shreveport, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans, along with local law enforcement shortages and the state’s vulnerability to natural disasters that could complicate response efforts—particular concerns as Mardi Gras and college football bowl games approach.
Even as these numbers reveal a complicated crime picture, the administration’s approach raises questions about the best way to ensure safety and accountability. The Louisiana data shows mixed trends: some cities are seeing decreases in homicide, while violent crime elsewhere remains stubbornly high. The real question, from a public safety and justice perspective, is whether militarized deployments address root causes—poverty, underfunded schools, inadequate mental health and addiction services, and communities built on immigrant and working-class resilience—or if they simply shift the battlefield without healing it.
As a progressive voice rooted in grassroots organizing, immigrant family history, and public education advocacy, I believe safety is inseparable from justice. We should demand investments that strengthen communities from the ground up: robust public schools, expanded healthcare and mental health services, affordable housing, job training, and community-led policing reforms. If the government can mobilize resources to bail out large corporations, it must be prepared to invest in the everyday security and dignity of our neighborhoods—without normalizing the deployment of troops into our streets as the default tool for crime prevention.
The path forward should center prevention, community engagement, and accountability. We should push for federal and state support that expands social services, funds crime-prevention programs, and strengthens disaster preparedness—addressing crime and safety at its roots, not just its symptoms.
This is about more than a single policy instrument; it’s about the kind of safety state we’re building. It’s about whether communities have the tools to thrive, or whether they’re treated as battlegrounds where enforcement is the path to order. I choose safe, dignified communities built on opportunity, not the noise of escalation.