Militarized Policing—Whether Cooperative or Coercive—Still Misses the Point
When it comes to public safety, the need to emphasize collaboration over coercion cannot be overstated. This goes for relationships between law enforcement and communities as well as between law enforcement entities themselves. New Mexico’s recent deployment of the National Guard to Albuquerque illustrates a cooperative effort between state leadership, local police, and community stakeholders to fill administrative and support roles amidst law enforcement staffing shortages.
This stands in stark contrast to President Donald J. Trump’s pronouncement that he would send the “Full Force” of the military into “War ravaged Portland [Oregon].” This top-down, heavy-handed occupation risks undermining norms of the Constitution and public trust in policing. Although the lesser of two evils compared to forcible federal intervention, New Mexico’s model for using the National Guard as law enforcement is still not the right way to promote long-term public safety in our cities.
However, it is still worth discussing the differences and highlighting the extreme challenges that Trump’s proposed actions in Portland pose for law enforcement and public safety. The contrast between New Mexico’s approach and the rhetoric around Portland could not be starker. In Albuquerque, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham authorized 60 to 70 New Mexico National Guard personnel to work behind the scenes beginning in mid-May. All underwent training to assist the Albuquerque Police Department in collaboration with New Mexico’s departments of Homeland Security and Public Safety and the State Police.
They do not patrol in military uniforms or ride in Humvees. They do not carry rifles or even make arrests. Instead, they help secure crime scenes, process case files, transport detainees, and monitor security cameras. In short, they free up sworn officers to focus on actual policing. The arrangement is carefully limited, publicly explained, and shaped by local input. It reflects the sober recognition that Albuquerque faces serious violent crime challenges while its police department struggles to recruit and retain enough officers to meet demand.
By comparison, the declaration to use force in Portland is filled with inflammatory rhetoric, implying that the city needs a military occupation to restore order. This framing of an American city as if it were a foreign battlefield is deeply inappropriate. Portland is not a war zone, nor is it unique. This is just the latest in a string of cities threatened with forced deployments, often over the clear objections of governors, mayors, and local law enforcement. Not only do such threats disregard federalism and constitutional guardrails, they also risk turning tense local situations into crises of legitimacy and normalizing military overreach.
Civil liberties advocates have rightly warned that even cooperative and carefully outlined National Guard missions still risk normalizing military involvement in civilian life. Others argue that resources spent on deployments or other means of “cleaning up” homelessness and crime would be better invested in community services, from mental health intervention to addiction treatment. Those critiques underscore an essential truth: Even the most collaborative use of the National Guard is not a long-term solution and can even harm overall public safety.
If we want safer cities, the answer lies in proven solutions like strengthening local police departments, expanding violence intervention programs, improving police culture to boost recruitment and retention, and tackling the root causes of crime. Using the military may generate headlines, but it has minimal lasting impact on reducing crime or keeping communities safe.
The distinction between Albuquerque and Portland highlights why collaboration matters. Public safety requires the public perception of police legitimacy. Residents are more likely to trust and cooperate with law enforcement when they see local leaders in charge of major decisions that affect their neighborhoods. They are also more likely to feel safe when National Guard troops blend into supportive, behind-the-scenes roles rather than dominate the streets in combat gear. By working in khakis and polos instead of camouflage and carrying body cameras instead of rifles, the New Mexico Guard has avoided the optics of militarization, with Albuquerque officials reporting progress as a result. Arrests are up, backlogs are down, and officers can focus on their core duties.
In fact, Police Chief Harold Medina has called it “one of the best decisions” he has made. However, he also admits that he “honestly hope[s] they’re here for the next year,” hinting at a broader problem.
The deployment in New Mexico shows that if Guard support is used at all, it should be narrow, collaborative, and deliberately non-militarized. But even at their best and most collaborative, National Guard deployments are no substitute for professional, accountable, fully trained, and adequately staffed police forces. Soldiers sign up for the National Guard to serve their country in emergencies, not to backfill routine law enforcement shortages. Relying on them for day-to-day policing tasks is a stopgap measure at best.
The real issue is the persistent struggle to recruit and retain police officers. Departments nationwide face record vacancies as retirements rise and fewer applicants step forward. The recent signing bonus of $50,000 offered to individuals who join Immigration and Customs Enforcement—which many law enforcement leaders have viewed as direct competition to their hiring efforts—has likely not helped.
Regardless, without addressing the root problem of understaffing, National Guard deployments of any kind will only momentarily cover up deeper cracks and flaws in the system. New Mexico’s experiment may buy Albuquerque time to bring crime down and address current backlogs, but it cannot substitute for lasting investment in state and local law enforcement.
Fortunately, the choice facing policymakers is not whether to do nothing or to send in the troops—it is whether to build resilient, local public safety systems or resort to short-term, high-risk fixes. Current federal threats remind us what happens when the line between policing and soldiering is blurred. The results are heavy-handed, divisive, and unconstitutional.
All Americans deserve safe communities, but they also deserve a government that respects constitutional limits, values local control, and understands that trust is as critical to public safety as manpower. Collaboration is the path forward. The sooner we refocus on solving recruitment and retention in law enforcement, the sooner temporary deployments of the National Guard can return to what they are meant for: responding to genuine emergencies.