President Donald J. Trump has taken new steps in his approach to crime in American cities, recently signing an executive order to create “specialized units” within the National Guard for crime prevention efforts across the country. This follows the deployment of the National Guard to Washington, D.C., and increased focus on cities such as Chicago.
Critics argue that using military forces for domestic law enforcement poses risks to civil liberties and undermines effective policing. Research indicates that communities exposed to military-style patrols tend to have reduced trust in government and are less likely to cooperate with police—two factors considered important for addressing crime. The presence of troops is often perceived as an occupation rather than a partnership, which can increase tensions instead of easing them.
The responsibility for policing traditionally falls under local and state authorities. Federal intervention in local law enforcement raises concerns about overstepping federal boundaries and setting problematic precedents. Some observers believe that rhetoric describing urban areas as “disaster[s]” or “killing field[s]” encourages fear-based policymaking rather than solutions grounded in evidence.
Effective strategies for public safety typically involve investment in local policing, support for violence intervention programs, improvements in recruitment and retention within police departments, and attention to root causes of crime.
Historical precedent distinguishes between military operations abroad and civilian policing at home. Laws like the Posse Comitatus Act reinforce this separation by restricting military involvement in domestic law enforcement roles. Soldiers are not trained for upholding constitutional rights among civilians, making their use as police problematic.
The National Guard can be deployed domestically when activated by governors under State Active Duty orders—usually during emergencies such as natural disasters or homeland defense situations—while remaining under state control. It is less common for presidents to invoke Title 10 powers to federalize the guard without state consent; President Trump previously used this authority during deployments to Los Angeles despite objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Federalizing the guard through Title 10 also shifts costs onto taxpayers nationwide. For example, Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.) questioned Department of Defense officials about expenses related to recent deployments; past estimates suggest costs could surpass $1 million per day.
Deploying National Guard units where local or state officials object is viewed by many as legally ambiguous due to limits on presidential authority over such actions. Many agree that troop deployments should remain rare and aligned with requests from those familiar with community needs.
“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.”
