Resources

Troops to San Francisco

Federal Troop Deployment San Francisco became the latest flashpoint in President Donald Trump's campaign to deploy National Guard troops to Democratic-led cities across the United States. The controversy intensified in recent days when Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff publicly supported federal intervention, sparking fierce debate among tech leaders, local officials, and national political figures about public safety, federal overreach, and the appropriate response to urban challenges including the fentanyl crisis.

Presidential Statements and Threats

President Trump has repeatedly named San Francisco among several Democratic-led cities he claims need federal intervention. In August 2025, Trump stated from the Oval Office that Democrats had "destroyed" San Francisco and indicated his administration would "clean that up" using federal troops. He characterized the city as one of several that have lost control under Democratic leadership.

The rhetoric escalated significantly in late September when Trump addressed top U.S. military officials at an unusual gathering in Quantico, Virginia. During this speech, he described a "war from within" and named San Francisco alongside Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles as "very unsafe places" that need to be "straightened out one by one." Trump suggested to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that these cities could serve as training grounds for National Guard troops, stating his intention to use dangerous cities for military training purposes.

Chicago appears to be first on the administration's list for deployment. Trump has repeatedly indicated that Chicago would receive federal troops "very soon" and described it as "a mess" that would be straightened out first. The president has already deployed National Guard troops to several cities, including approximately 2,000 troops to Washington D.C. and more than 4,000 to Los Angeles during protests related to immigration raids.

Corporate Support and the Benioff Controversy

The debate took an unexpected turn when Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce and a prominent San Francisco business leader, expressed support for federal intervention during an interview with The New York Times published on October 11. Benioff cited a shortage of approximately 1,000 police officers in San Francisco and stated, "We don't have enough cops, so if they can be cops, I'm all for it." His comments came as Salesforce prepared to welcome tens of thousands of attendees to its annual Dreamforce conference in downtown San Francisco.

However, Benioff appeared to soften his stance shortly after the interview was published, writing that safety is "first and foremost, the responsibility of our city and state leaders." Despite this partial walkback, his initial comments had already sparked controversy and provided ammunition for those advocating federal intervention. In his follow-up remarks, Benioff praised Mayor Daniel Lurie's efforts to increase police hiring and retain law enforcement personnel.

Elon Musk's Endorsement

Elon Musk, who maintains significant business interests in the San Francisco Bay Area through companies including xAI, X, and Neuralink, seized on Benioff's comments to voice his own support for federal intervention. Musk stated on his social media platform X that deploying troops was "the only solution at this point" and that "nothing else has or will work." He characterized downtown San Francisco as a "drug zombie apocalypse" and shared his views with his more than 227 million followers.

Musk's endorsement came in response to posts by Tom Wolf, who describes himself as a formerly homeless recovering addict and advocate for addiction recovery in San Francisco. Wolf cited data showing more than 4,300 overdose deaths since 2020 and referenced a March 2025 survey by the conservative Voice of San Francisco, which found that 61 percent of voters support federal intervention to deport undocumented fentanyl dealers, with the number rising to 83 percent when including those who "somewhat agree." Wolf argued that removing organized drug dealers would eliminate 80 percent of the city's problems.

Local Government Opposition

San Francisco's elected officials have uniformly and vocally opposed the prospect of federal troop deployment. Mayor Daniel Lurie, who defeated incumbent London Breed in November 2024 partly by promising to clean up the city's streets, has emphasized the progress San Francisco has made on public safety. He noted that crime is down 30 percent citywide and 40 percent in the financial district, with tent encampments at an all-time low. Mayor Lurie has maintained his policy of not directly responding to or mentioning President Trump by name, instead focusing on local accomplishments and data.

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins issued a particularly forceful response, stating she "can't be silent any longer" after Benioff's interview. Jenkins accused Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of turning "so-called public safety and immigration enforcement into a form of government sponsored violence against U.S." citizens. Her statement reflected concerns that federal intervention would constitute inappropriate use of military force for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Governor Gavin Newsom, who has positioned himself as a leader of resistance to Trump administration policies, characterized the president's speech to military officials as terrifying. Newsom stated that "declaring war on our nation's cities and using our troops as political pawns is what dictators do," and accused Trump of caring "about nothing but his own ego and power." This marked a stark contrast to Mayor Lurie's more measured approach of avoiding direct confrontation while defending the city's record.

Divided Tech Community Response

Not all tech leaders share Musk and Benioff's support for federal intervention. Garry Tan, CEO of startup incubator Y Combinator, stated "We don't need the National Guard" while simultaneously criticizing progressive local policies and former District Attorney Chesa Boudin. Tan's response reflected a broader sentiment among some tech leaders that San Francisco's problems require local solutions rather than federal military intervention, though they may disagree about the specific nature of those solutions.

The division within the tech community reflects broader tensions about how to address San Francisco's challenges, particularly around the fentanyl epidemic and visible street conditions. While there is widespread agreement that problems exist, opinion diverges sharply on whether federal military intervention represents an appropriate or effective solution versus local policy changes and increased local law enforcement resources.

Crime Statistics and Reality Check

The debate over troop deployment occurs against a backdrop of improving crime statistics that complicate the narrative of a city in crisis. According to San Francisco Police Department data obtained by ABC7, major crimes in the city are down 36 percent over the last 12 months compared to the average for the previous three years. A San Francisco Chronicle analysis from July 2025 found that reported violent crime fell 19 percent and property crime decreased 25 percent in the first half of 2025, continuing historic declines from the previous year.

These local statistics align with national trends. A report from the Council on Criminal Justice shows that there were fewer offenses in large U.S. cities in the first half of 2025 than during the first half of 2019, before the pandemic. Crime has been declining nationwide, contradicting Trump's characterization of Democratic-led cities as increasingly dangerous and out of control.

However, frustration persists over specific issues, particularly the fentanyl epidemic, which has killed thousands of San Franciscans even as overall violence statistics improve. This disconnect between improving crime numbers and persistent quality-of-life concerns around drug use, homelessness, and street conditions has created political space for debate about whether current approaches are sufficient.

Legal Challenges and Constitutional Questions

Whether Trump will actually deploy troops to San Francisco remains uncertain due to significant legal obstacles. Federal judges have already blocked several of the president's recent troop deployments to other cities as violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. These legal challenges have affected attempted deployments to cities including Chicago and Portland, creating precedent that could apply to any San Francisco deployment.

The city of Portland and the state of Oregon have sued the Trump administration to stop troop deployment in their jurisdiction. Trump's order to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles remains the focus of an ongoing legal challenge arguing that the president wrongly deployed the California guard. These cases will likely establish legal frameworks that determine whether similar deployments to San Francisco would be permissible under federal law and constitutional constraints.

The unusual nature of Trump's September address to military officials, where he called on generals to defend against an internal invasion and suggested using cities as National Guard training grounds, drew lackluster applause from the assembled officers. This tepid response from military leadership may indicate institutional reluctance to involve the armed forces in domestic political disputes or law enforcement activities traditionally handled by civilian authorities.

Political and Cultural Dimensions

The controversy over potential troop deployment to San Francisco highlights deeper political and cultural divides within the city and the nation. San Francisco's status as a Democratic stronghold and center of progressive politics makes it a natural target for Trump's broader campaign against what he characterizes as failed Democratic governance. The city has maintained sanctuary policies protecting undocumented immigrants, which Mayor Lurie has expressed support for continuing despite federal pressure.

The tension between those calling for stronger enforcement, including potential federal intervention, and those warning against federal overreach reflects San Francisco's internal political divisions. While the city's elected officials present a united front against troop deployment, survey data suggesting significant public support for federal action against fentanyl dealers indicates that residents may be more divided on the issue than their elected representatives.

The debate also reflects different philosophies about the role of federal power and military force in addressing urban challenges. Critics of potential deployment argue that using troops for domestic law enforcement represents a dangerous precedent and inappropriate militarization of civilian problems. Supporters contend that local governments have proven incapable of addressing serious public safety issues and that extraordinary measures are justified by the severity of problems like the fentanyl crisis.

"Radical Left Democrats" was Trump's most frequently used epithet when discussing San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities. In his speech to military officials at Quantico in September 2025, Trump specifically stated: "It seems as though the ones that are run by the radical left democrats what they've done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, LA, they're very unsafe places and we're going to straighten them out one by one."
"Destroyed" - Trump repeatedly claims Democrats have "destroyed" San Francisco. He stated: "Look at what the Democrats have done to San Francisco. They've destroyed it."
Cities that have "lost control" - Trump characterized Democratic-run cities as places where local leadership has "lost control," though he declined to name any Democrats who allegedly called asking for federal help.
"San Francisco radical" - During the 2024 campaign, Trump's campaign specifically labeled Vice President Kamala Harris as a "San Francisco radical" after her CNN interview.

Trump also pronounced Governor Gavin Newsom's name as "new-scum" during remarks, making his contempt explicit through this deliberate mispronunciation. The phrase "radical left Democrats" became Trump's standard epithet not just for San Francisco, but for all Democratic-led cities he's targeted for potential federal troop deployment.

San Francisco became associated with counterculture movements that Republicans viewed as un-American starting in the 1950s and 1960s. The Beat Generation in the mid-1950s, followed by the hippie movement and the famous 1967 Summer of Love, established the city as a center of alternative lifestyles, drug experimentation, and anti-establishment politics. The House Un-American Activities Committee held hearings in San Francisco in 1960, with police attacking protesters at City Hall. In 1953, Congress even debated destroying murals at the Rincon Annex post office because right-wing groups considered them "subversive, communistic and insufficiently celebratory" of the city's history.

Republicans systematically used San Francisco as a political weapon to attack liberal policies nationwide. Ron DeSantis held up a "poop map" during his Fox News debate with Gavin Newsom, claiming to show human feces proliferation on city streets. After a brief visit, he created campaign ads blaming "leftist policies" for street conditions. The Republican Party released AI-generated apocalyptic imagery of San Francisco's streets in campaign materials.

Conservative criticism centers heavily on homelessness as evidence of progressive policy failure. California has approximately half of America's homeless population despite being only 12% of the total population, with San Francisco being a primary focus Conservatives argue the city's approach of providing housing without requiring treatment for addiction or mental illness is fundamentally flawed. San Francisco spends over $1 billion annually on homelessness, yet the problem has grown 32-63% depending on the measurement period. Critics claim permissive policies attract homeless individuals from other areas, creating an unsolvable cycle.

Conservative outlets like Heritage Foundation, Fox News, and The American Conservative have produced extensive content portraying San Francisco as a cautionary tale of progressive governance gone wrong, often using terms like "hellscape," "dystopia," and "open sewer."

Conclusion

The question of whether federal troops will be deployed to San Francisco remains unresolved. While President Trump has repeatedly threatened such action and gained support from prominent figures like Elon Musk and initially from Marc Benioff, significant obstacles remain in the form of legal challenges, local opposition, and questions about the constitutional appropriateness of using military forces for domestic law enforcement. The improving crime statistics cited by local officials complicate the narrative of a city in crisis requiring federal intervention, even as persistent problems around fentanyl and quality-of-life issues fuel continued debate. As legal challenges to similar deployments in other cities work through the courts, San Francisco's fate may ultimately be decided by judicial interpretation of the limits of presidential power and the scope of the Posse Comitatus Act rather than by political rhetoric or local conditions.

Sources

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Military