President Donald Trump is defining a new role for the military in the United States, positioning it as a formidable instrument to further his policy objectives.
This approach has sparked significant debate and concern among experts and lawmakers, as it differs sharply from historical precedents where military involvement in civilian affairs was restricted to extraordinary circumstances, such as war or major civil unrest.
In recent moves, Trump has authorized National Guard troops to patrol the streets of U.S. cities, utilize military assets to combat international drug trafficking linked to gangs, and redirect military resources to support mass immigration enforcement operations.
Fellow Republicans in Congress have largely supported Trump’s aggressive approach, granting him considerable latitude as he proposes sending troops to cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and New Orleans.
Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss, expressed positive sentiments about the deployment, stating that mayors would benefit from such assistance in combating crime.
Wicker, speaking from a Capitol building where National Guard troops were present, argued that Democratic leaders in big cities were misreading the situation, saying, “I think the big city Democrats are really making a mistake. I think they’re being tone deaf.”
Local lawmakers from Louisiana, a predominantly red state enveloping the Democratic-led New Orleans, echoed similar sentiments, lauding the potential presence of National Guard troops in the city.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, noted the high crime rate in cities governed by Democrats, adding, “It would be helpful” to have National Guard support.
Senator John Kennedy, R-La., concurred with Johnson, stating, “We need all the help we can get. I’m delighted to bring in the National Guard.”
Within the political landscape, crime has emerged as a focal point for the Republican party, resonating with many voters.
Recent polling from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that a significant majority of Americans—81%—view crime as a grave issue in large cities, including nearly all Republicans, roughly three-quarters of independents, and about 70% of Democrats.
Despite widespread public concern over crime, statistics reveal that crime rates have generally declined across the nation, with some cities observing their lowest figures in three decades.
Trump’s application of National Guard troops for law enforcement marks a significant departure from tradition.
Historically, the deployment of National Guard personnel on American soil has been limited to extraordinary situations like natural disasters or instances when local authorities were overwhelmed by unrest.
Noteworthy examples include the 1894 Pullman strike in Chicago and military intervention during the 1992 Los Angeles riots following the acquittal of officers involved in the Rodney King beating.
Experts highlighted that Trump’s crime-focused mission stands out because it is not in response to any acute crisis.
Instead of addressing an urgent situation, Trump appears to be using military capabilities to implement his domestic policies, whether through military flights for deportations, increasing military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border, or preparing National Guard troops for potential law enforcement tasks.
According to Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, these actions signify a consequential attempt by the administration to intertwine the military with civil law enforcement on an unprecedented scale.
Trump has asserted his authority to deploy National Guard troops within cities, regardless of state governors’ objections, stating, “If I think our country is in danger—and it is in danger in these cities—I can do it.”
The constitutional responsibilities of Congress entail establishing laws regarding the National Guard’s domestic deployment.
However, as Trump tests the boundaries of these laws, the Republican-controlled Congress has remained largely supportive.
Consequently, it has fallen to the judiciary to impose limitations on Trump’s expansive presidential approach.
A recent federal ruling indicated that the Trump administration had “willfully” violated the Posse Comitatus Act by deploying National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amidst protests about immigration raids.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer expressed concerns about the administration’s plans for further troop deployments, warning that they may be creating a national police force under direct presidential control.
The potential misuse of the National Guard is precisely what the framers of the Constitution sought to prevent.
The United States had just emerged from a war of independence fueled in part by the British military acting as a police force in the colonies, fostering hesitance among early leaders to grant excessive military authority to the president.
Over time, the balance of control over the military has leaned increasingly toward the federal government.
As Andrew Wiest, co-founder of the Center for the Study of the National Guard, articulated, this moment represents another potential turning point in the power dynamics of the National Guard, which may shift further toward federal authority or revert to a more localized structure.
image source from：pbs
