The Policing Project condemns the Trump administration’s deployment of the United States military – including the National Guard and U.S. Marines – in the streets of Los Angeles. The use of the military to replace local law enforcement in responding to protests is both anti-democratic and dangerous for public safety.
In the United States, there is a long and important tradition of local law enforcement responding to local unrest—not the federal government and certainly not the United States military. That tradition is central to our federal system and the rule of law: the Founders, having been subject to a military occupation, expressly rejected the deployment of the military to enforce civilian law. A century later, Congress codified that tradition in the Posse Comitatus Act.
There are limited exceptions, primarily if local law enforcement requests federal assistance and in the rare event of an insurrection or similarly significant breakdown of local authority. But neither is the case here. State and local officials in California have not requested assistance. To the contrary, in court filings and public appearances, they have vigorously opposed federal involvement. By all accounts, the Los Angeles Police Department is more than equipped to handle what appears to be an almost entirely peaceful protest.
This same principle is equally critical to public safety. Effective law enforcement requires public trust and community support. Replacing local law enforcement – who are accountable to their own communities – with soldiers in military uniforms is a recipe for the opposite. It is provocative, escalatory, and bound to make matters worse.
In federalizing the National Guard, it appears the Administration is misinterpreting legitimate protest as lawbreaking. There is no right to destroy property, nor to threaten to or injure law enforcement officials doing their jobs. But for the most part, what is occurring on the streets of Los Angeles, and the United States, is legitimate protest. It is the job of law enforcement—federal, state, or local—to protect those exercising First Amendment rights lawfully, and ensure their ability to do so. Dissent, too, is a longstanding American tradition.
The President wisely has not sought to invoke the Insurrection Act. What’s happening in LA is, after all, far from what the law is meant to address – namely, a domestic crisis so disruptive that state and local governments are unable or unwilling to protect the rights of their residents and ensure the rule of law operates as it should. In this case, the Insurrection Act would be invoked to undermine, not protect, basic rights.
Local law enforcement, in doing their jobs, must of course respect critical principles of the rule of law and democracy. During the protests of 2020 we released a report and guidelines about how law enforcement should police protests; that advice remains appropriate today. When local law enforcement responds to protests, it should do so with caution and restraint; even the deployment of less-lethal weapons can be enormously dangerous.
Finally, law enforcement—federal, state, and local—must always be accountable for its actions. That means that officers should be identifiable, and should not be masked. By the same token, the work law enforcement performs can be stressful and at times even traumatic. Law enforcement leaders should ensure that their officers have the resources to manage the stress of policing under these heightened circumstances.
This moment demands a reaffirmation of both democratic values and the bedrock principles of effective policing and public safety.