Over the last ten years, America has witnessed a new use of federal law enforcement and military personnel in its own cities. Under President Donald Trump’s administration, thousands of National Guard troops and even active-duty Marines were deployed in major cities, which has sparked controversy across the country about the limits of the president’s authority, the role of the military in everyday life for citizens, and the health of American democracy.
The Constitutional and Legal Framework
American heritage has long made a distinction between military soldiers and civilian police. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the employment of federal troops for domestic law enforcement except where Congress or the Constitution explicitly approves. The Insurrection Act is among the exceptions to enable the president to deploy troops when there is are insurrection or state officials cannot or will not restore order.
Civil liberties organizations have pointed out the Founding Fathers’ prudence with regard to the risks involved in a standing army. They emphasized control by civilians and desired the military to be kept beyond usual domestic affairs. Even under emergency authority, safeguards are provided to protect citizens’ rights and prevent misuse of military powers.
Deployments in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.
During these decades of ingrained mores, the Trump administration deployed military forces into cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., sometimes against the will of local and state officials. In Los Angeles, deployments included not only National Guard soldiers but even approximately 700 Marines—fighting troops from abroad, not police the streets of a city.
California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned these attempts as a “brazen abuse of power,” saying the president had ratcheted up already frayed tensions. Reports included unmarked cars parked at school parking lots, families boycotting events, and federal agents making arrests far beyond the scope of targeting violent offenders. Newsom said that such action threatened not just California but democracy itself.
Chicago’s Governor JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson both criticized the deployments. Pritzker called them unnecessary, stating that there was no real emergency, and blamed the president for creating a crisis for political reasons. Johnson repeated concerns that calling in the military to communities would inflame the situation and undermine work towards public safety.
In Washington, D.C., roughly 2,000 National Guard troops were initially sent out unarmed but were later armed, consistent with Pentagon recommendations. Citizens and local officials universally responded negatively to the action, with surveys indicating broad disapproval of the move from city citizens.
Political and Community Backlash
Opposition to these deployments went beyond city councils. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin termed threats of deploying the military into cities like Chicago as “dangerous, illegal, and unconstitutional.” He further explained that such a move overstrains military resources, diverts money from national defense, and has the potential to alienate local populations. Durbin also raised the political hypocrisy of threatening particular cities while ignoring some cities with identical or even worse crime statistics.
Civil rights activists and community organizations complained about the social and psychological impacts on residents, particularly minority and immigrant populations. In Los Angeles, riots broke out following federal immigration sweeps that arrested people, including a pregnant U.S. citizen, due to fears of selective enforcement and civil rights violations.
The Role of ICE and DHS
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were the primary agencies involved in these operations. ICE engaged in its Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations divisions to target individuals who were breaking immigration law, not merely those with a criminal record. These actions, often coordinated with deployments of the military, blurred the line between immigration enforcement and standard policing, resulting in mass civil liberty issues.
Historical Context
While sending federal troops onto US soil is not unheard of, it has always been the exception in the past and only for real crises. During the civil rights movement, troops were sent out by President Eisenhower to enforce desegregation of schools in Arkansas, and President George H.W. Bush sent troops to Los Angeles following the 1992 Rodney King riots—but both instances with the request of state governments. What was so controversial about the Trump-era deployments was the lack of local popular backing, deploying military troops to conduct routine law enforcement duties, and targeting particular cities for political purposes. As Governor Newsom stressed, “Not since the civil rights movement in the 1960s has a president sent National Guard troops to quell unrest without the governor’s consent.”
Impact on Communities and Democracy
The deployment of troops and federal police into cities around the United States has left indelible marks on affected communities. Reports of unmarked vehicles, mass arrests, and coercive techniques have instilled heightened suspicion and fear, especially among vulnerable populations. Critics argue that these tactics erase the rule of law, compromise civil liberties, and pose long-term threats to democratic norms. While the nation weighs these deployments, the debate regarding the proper mission of the military and federal agencies in civilian society remains urgent. The choices made here will define the government and the citizen for generations to come.
