On Tuesday, The Standard polled readers about their views on the possible deployment of National Guard troops and federal immigration agents in the Bay Area. More than 1,000 people responded — 77% of them San Francisco residents — with an overwhelming majority stating they are against the potential crackdown by federal law enforcement agents.
More than 80% of survey respondents said they oppose a National Guard deployment to San Francisco, with a slightly higher percentage saying they are against the mobilization of additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents.
The majority rejection of the deployment plans comes after President Donald Trump said in an interview on Fox News last weekend that federal forces were coming because “I think they want us in San Francisco.”
Customs and Border Protection agents will start arriving in the Bay Area on Thursday as part of a ramp-up in operations in the region, the Coast Guard confirmed. In public statements Wednesday, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie positioned the initial surge in officers as part of a playbook where “masked immigration officials are deployed to use aggressive enforcement tactics.”
“These tactics are designed to incite backlash, chaos, and violence, which are then used as an excuse to deploy military personnel,” he said. “They are intentionally creating a dangerous situation in the name of public safety.”
A mere 14% believe that the current federal immigration actions in the city have made the city safer, while 71% don’t believe that San Francisco has a problem with illegal immigration.
More than half of respondents said they would protest or strike if the National Guard were deployed, and more than three-quarters support legal challenges by California and San Francisco against the deployment of federal personnel.
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu and California Attorney General Rob Bonta threatened to file immediate lawsuits if Trump ordered the National Guard to the city as an alleged unlawful act.
“We are prepared to sue immediately if the President deploys National Guard troops to San Francisco, and we understand the anticipated increase in immigration enforcement in the area may be a precursor to that deployment,” a spokesperson for Bonta said in a statement.
“Federal agents like CBP can enforce immigration laws, but we will continue to monitor the Trump Administration’s actions closely for compliance with the law.”
But despite opposing federal troops, nearly 80% support Lurie’s proposal for “stronger coordination” between the San Francisco Police Department and federal agencies like the FBI and ATF to disrupt drug markets. In his recent public statement, Lurie cited partnerships with state and federal law enforcement in helping to push crime levels in San Francisco to near-record lows.
Responses on where federal troops should go if deployed showed a sharp divide.
Many opposed deployment outright, saying troops should be stationed “nowhere” or “stay out.” Those open to the idea most often named the Tenderloin, followed by SoMa and the Mission, citing the drug crisis. Some urged troops to “clean up fentanyl dealers” or “shut down open-air drug markets,” suggesting sites like Civic Center BART station and U.N. Plaza.
Even some opponents to deployment acknowledged the drug issue, with one writing, “I don’t want troops, but if they come, deal with the fentanyl dealers.”
Others voiced anger at city leadership — “Put them wherever the city refuses to enforce laws” — or mocked the idea, writing, “Station them at the airport, preparing for departure.”
Messages to Trump were similarly polarized. Supporters thanked him for “caring about San Francisco when our own leaders won’t,” while detractors said, “Stay out of our city,” or condemned “authoritarianism.” A few took a middle ground: “The problems are real, but your solutions are worse than the disease.”
See below for additional poll results.