Gov. Bill Lee and President Donald Trump have locked arms on a bold move to tackle crime in Memphis with the Tennessee National Guard leading the charge.
According to Tennessee Lookout, Lee confirmed Friday he’s been in close talks with the Trump administration to roll out a comprehensive mission involving not just the National Guard, but also the FBI, Tennessee Highway Patrol, Memphis Police, and other agencies. The goal is to clamp down on crime in Shelby County’s largest city, with details being finalized in a direct conversation between Lee and Trump that same day.
Trump, speaking to Fox News, described Memphis as “deeply troubled” and claimed both the city’s Democratic mayor and Republican governor welcomed his push to send in troops, akin to his actions in Washington, D.C. While the optics suggest a unified front, the reality on the ground tells a story of division and unease about federal overreach.
Memphis Mayor Paul Young, while silent to the Lookout, told MLK50 he’s focused on ensuring any efforts bolster community progress. His cautious tone hints at a balancing act between accepting help and guarding local autonomy.
Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, however, didn’t mince words, calling Trump’s decision “disappointing and anti-Democratic.” He warned that deploying troops could stifle Tennesseans’ freedoms, like the right to protest or travel, and vowed to resist what he sees as an unwarranted intrusion.
Senate Minority Leader Raumesh Akbari, a Memphis Democrat, echoed Harris’s outrage, stating, “This is an abuse of power, using troops to score political points off of crime statistics, even though overall crime in Memphis is down to a 25-year low.” Her point cuts to the core: if crime is already trending down, why turn a city into a militarized zone?
Just two weeks ago, Gov. Lee told reporters that Memphis crime had dropped 15% in the past year and saw no need for National Guard intervention. A week later, under mounting speculation and calls from state Republican officials, he flipped, suggesting anything was on the table.
Trump’s own track record on troop deployments adds fuel to the skepticism, as a federal appeals court ruled his move to send forces into Los Angeles without the California governor’s consent was illegal, a decision his administration is now appealing. His initial plan to deploy to Chicago also fizzled out, raising questions about whether Memphis is just another political chess piece.
Meanwhile, Tennessee law permits the governor to mobilize the National Guard during emergencies like riots or disasters, but only to the extent of the crisis. With crime stats improving, critics argue this deployment stretches the definition of emergency into dangerous territory.
Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, has pushed for a “strike force” targeting gang activity in Memphis, seeing federal and state troops as a necessary hammer. On social media, Memphis Republican Rep. John Gillespie doubled down, expressing gratitude for the decision and stressing that arrests must pair with strict prosecution and courtroom accountability.
Yet, not all local voices align with this hardline approach, as Memphis Democratic Rep. Jesse Chism warned against undermining the police department’s recent strides. “Sending troops into Memphis now could rip the scab off of a wound that is just beginning to heal and only increases the possibility of unintended consequences,” Chism said, pointing to risks of escalation over resolution.
The last time the Tennessee National Guard rolled into Memphis was 1978, during a firefighters’ strike that sparked over 100 fires and prompted a civil emergency with curfews. That historical precedent, rooted in chaos, feels far removed from today’s context of declining crime numbers.
At its heart, this deployment raises a thorny question: does the push for safety justify a military footprint in a city already showing signs of improvement? The stats—crime at a 25-year low—clash with the narrative of a city in crisis, suggesting this move might be more about signaling toughness than solving a real emergency.
Critics like Harris and Akbari see a deeper threat, not just to Memphis but to the principle of local control, fearing a precedent where federal power trumps state and city voices. Their warnings resonate with anyone wary of government overstep, especially when the need for such drastic action seems questionable at best.
For now, as Lee and Trump iron out the mission’s scope, Memphians are left to wonder if this show of force will bring peace or provoke tension. The line between order and overreach is razor-thin, and with community progress on the line, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
