This Independence Day, Remember Why We Don’t Use the Military as Police
As we celebrate Independence Day with fireworks, cookouts, and a healthy dose of all things red, white, and blue, it is worth remembering the ideals that drove America’s founding and the guardrails established to preserve them.
Much attention is rightly given to the famous promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, but less frequently considered are the 27 specific grievances that underscored the need to break from British rule—each of which speaks volumes about what the colonists feared in concentrated power based on their experiences.
Most of those grievances have thankfully been left behind, such as suspending local legislatures or “plunder[ing] our seas, ravag[ing] our coasts, [and] burn[ing] our towns.” For the most part, the system of governance established as a result of the Constitutional Convention has proven effective at preventing these various abuses of power. However, one grievance still feels relevant today: “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.”
This concern reflected the life of the colonists under military occupation, with British troops patrolling the streets, enforcing order on instruction from the crown and overriding local forms of governance. The presence of a detached military within civilian communities was something on which the framers of the Constitution were careful to enshrine limits that carry forward to the present day.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 explicitly prohibits the use of the military for law enforcement purposes on home soil unless expressly authorized. While the law does not cover every possible federal agency with tactical capabilities, its core message is clear: Policing American communities is a civilian responsibility—not a military one.
Breaking this idea down further, it is wise to think about the specific roles law enforcement plays in our communities versus the role of the military. Policing is about protecting rights, resolving disputes, and maintaining civil order within a framework of accountability and constitutional constraints, while the military is trained to fight and win wars via overwhelming force against those abroad—not against their country’s own citizens. Blurring these lines endangers both liberty and legitimacy.
It is against this historical backdrop that recent federal actions, such as the unrequested deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles during recent protests, demand scrutiny from all those who celebrate what it means to be an American this Fourth of July.
While the federal government would argue that the response was necessary to protect public safety and restore order, the images of militarized forces patrolling American streets—many without clear identification—nonetheless stirred unease. This concern and its impact on the public perception of law enforcement and safety within communities must be balanced with the overarching need for public safety protections, which our system has carefully let rest with local law enforcement. These recent actions violate this.
Such rash moves to nationalize law enforcement responses to local unrest present problems beyond just optics. They represent fundamental breaches of long-established norms around using federal or military force in moments of domestic unrest as well as violations of constitutional protections designed to prevent exactly this kind of executive abuse.
Our country has long drawn a bright line between military operations and domestic policing, doubtless originating from the 11th grievance listed in the Declaration of Independence.
The danger of normalizing the use of federal military power in local situations—especially without a request or consent from state authorities—is that it runs afoul of the idea that long-term peace comes from trust in institutions, not fear of them. After all, it was a massive lack of trust in institutions that ultimately sparked the Revolutionary War.
Additionally, mistrust resulting from inappropriate federal intervention can backfire in terms of public safety. Many experts also think that the use of the military in the Los Angeles situation last month actually contributed to further escalation of the protests rather than quashing the unrest. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell expressed this, saying that it “risks confusion during critical incidents,” due to “two parallel tracks that don’t work together.”
It is easy to celebrate Independence Day with patriotism, and we should. But at the same time, we should hold space for deeper and more meaningful reflections on our country and think of ways to honor our founding ideals, remembering the careful balance our government upholds. The colonists rejected the idea of a government that ruled through force and occupation, demanding a structure built on consent, accountability, and civilian leadership instead.
Holding to these structures and resisting the urge to meet local dissent with military force does not signify federal weakness. In fact, it signifies federal strength in maintaining fidelity to the Constitution, commemorating our independence with reaffirmed commitments to the ideals that have kept our country free. These commitments must endure for generations to come.