Why Military Policing Is the Wrong Answer for America’s Cities
President Donald J. Trump has doubled down on his fiery rhetoric around crime in American cities, now targeting Chicago after sending the National Guard to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C. He has also signed a new executive order to establish “specialized units” in the National Guard for the purpose of addressing crime in cities across the country. While the president is clearly catching media attention, effective policing focuses on catching offenders and keeping communities safe—neither of which is accomplished by blurring the line between the military and law enforcement.
Inappropriate and excessive use of the military as domestic law enforcement not only threatens liberty and local control, it also undermines effective crime prevention. Even if real public safety challenges exist in Chicago or in other cities, deploying the military is not a solution. In fact, research shows it often backfires. Communities subject to military-style patrols report less trust in government and less cooperation with police—two essential keys to solving crime. Seeing troops in the streets signals occupation, not partnership. This perception can inflame tensions rather than defuse them.
Policing is primarily a local and state responsibility. Recent federal takeovers of local law enforcement trample on federalism and set precedents that no administration should want to establish. Talk of “disaster[s]” and “killing field[s]” aims to stoke fear; however, fear is a poor basis for sound policymaking. The path to safer cities in America lies in proven strategies like investing in local policing, supporting violence intervention programs, improving culture to help recruitment and retention, and addressing the root causes of crime. Deploying the military might score political points, but it will not solve crime or protect our citizens.
Americans have long drawn a bright line between military force abroad and policing at home, and rightly so. The Posse Comitatus Act and centuries of precedent reflect a simple truth: Soldiers are not trained to uphold constitutional rights in civilian settings. Combat abroad is not (and should not) compare to domestic community protection, and relying on the military as police—particularly against the wishes of governors, local communities, and other officials—blurs that line.
Deploying the National Guard to aid law enforcement is not unheard of and can be appropriate when done responsibly and sparingly. In fact, the most common method is for a governor to activate the guard on State Active Duty orders, typically in response to natural disasters or homeland defense missions. In these instances, the National Guard stays under the command of the governor.
A far less common practice is to invoke Title 10, which allows the president to federalize the guard. President Trump did this to send National Guard units to Los Angeles over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and he may do the same in other cities. Even though recent deployments have targeted specific cities, Title 10 places the cost of these deployments on the federal government (and therefore on taxpayers nationwide). Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.) sent a formal letter to the Department of Defense questioning the cost of the current deployment in D.C. as well as other items. Based on past estimates for deployments of the National Guard to D.C., this one could exceed $1 million per day.
Deploying the National Guard in circumstances where state or local officials have expressly opposed it should be avoided, particularly for state-level issues. Such actions are legally ambiguous due to the parameters that typically constrain presidential activation of the National Guard. Regardless, the deployment of any troops in a law enforcement capacity has always been (and must continue to be) done only in limited circumstances and should not go against the wishes of the state and local actors who know their communities best.
If the ultimate goal is to improve public safety, turning any of our cities’ neighborhoods into military-patrolled areas against the better judgment of local officials is not the answer. The military should focus elsewhere, and policing should remain in the hands of local law enforcement officers sworn to protect and serve—not those trained to use overwhelming force against enemies abroad.