Trump’s invasion of D.C. costs over $1 million a day. What could that fund instead?

Tourists pass by members of the National Guard stationed outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

President Trump mobilized the D.C. National Guard under the guise of restoring security in the nation’s capital — despite D.C.’s crime rate being at a 30-year low. What began as a deployment of 800 D.C. National Guard troops has grown to encompass 2,091 as of this writing, as Republican governors send hundreds more.

Trump hasn’t just complained about alleged crime in the district — he’s placed a target on people experiencing poverty and homelessness. Claiming that we’re “getting rid of the slums,” Trump has called on troops and police to forcibly remove unhoused people from the city.

Federal law prohibits deploying the military on U.S. soil, except under certain extraordinary circumstances. Trump is currently facing legal challenges over his 60-day deployment of troops in Los Angeles earlier this year under equally unfounded claims about violence and risk — and against the wishes of the troops themselves.

Now he’s ordering soldiers into our streets for the fourth time as president to viciously target some of the most vulnerable members of our society — despite abundant evidence that prosecuting homelessness only makes it worse.

The cost of this cruel power grab is borne by taxpayers like you and me.

Previous reporting found that National Guard deployments cost the U.S. government $530 per Guard member, per day. So the price tag of deploying 2,091 troops to D.C. is well over $1 million per day — and the number of troops will likely continue to grow. And with no deadline for the D.C. deployment, those costs could add up for months or even years.

This militarized spending comes at the expense of federal programs — like public housing — that actually do prevent crime and improve health and education outcomes.

Using those figures and other publicly available data, I calculated that the daily cost of operating public housing for all 5,616 people who are unhoused in D.C. on any given night is one-quarter the daily expense of deploying the National Guard. If the Guard remains deployed for three months, it would cost more than operating public housing for the entire unhoused population in D.C. for an entire year. 

That’s also true in the states whose GOP governors are voluntarily sending National Guard troops to the capital. Across those six states — Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia — some 30,000 people are unhoused. The daily cost of operating safe shelter for all 30,000 would be less than one day of the D.C. occupation.

In fact, it’s true in almost every state, I learned.

The daily expense of deploying troops to D.C. is more than four times the daily cost of operating public housing for Georgia’s unhoused population, five times for Nevada’s unhoused population, and 15 times for all unhoused people in Wisconsin.

If you want numbers for your own city, county, state, or congressional district, you can use the National Priorities Project’s trade off calculator at NationalPriorities.org to learn more about what taxpayers in your area are paying towards militarism — and the services we could be enjoying instead.

Trump’s decision to hyper-militarize our streets is transpiring on the heels of the MAGA budget bill, which cuts food and medical services for millions across the country to further enrich billionaires and war profiteers.

Deploying troops in our nation’s capital, rather than investing in what makes communities safe and prosperous, is yet another attempt to scapegoat struggling people — especially communities of color — to advance a draconian agenda in service of billionaires, war profiteers, and white supremacy.

Government spending on straightforward solutions that help poor and working-class people faces constant political backlash. But providing affordable housing to end homelessness in D.C. would be far cheaper than deploying troops — and would do far more to improve the city’s security.

This commentary was originally published by OtherWords.