Soldiers Must Not Become Our Police

Sending combat troops into our nation’s cities to “fight crime” is like using a hammer to perform heart surgery—brutal, reckless, and almost certainly deadly.

There’s a dangerous and unconstitutional idea circulating: that the President of the United States wants to “send in the troops” to control crime in our cities—cities that are mostly Democratic-led, and often governed by women or Black or Hispanic mayors.

This is not just misguided. It’s illegal, unnecessary, and deeply, deeply un-American.

First, there’s no credible evidence showing that American cities are experiencing some unprecedented “crime wave.” Yes, crime fluctuates—as it always has—but the numbers simply don’t justify a military response. And even if they did, policing a free society is not the work of soldiers. It’s the work of trained local police who know their communities, work with them, and are held accountable to them.

If cities need help shoring up their police services, there are legitimate ways to do it—federal grants, community-based programs, partnerships with the Department of Justice or other agencies. But soldiers are not police officers. They are trained for combat, not controlled, legal guardianship.

Sending military troops into our cities would violate the very principles of our democracy that define us. It would also likely violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which flat-out bars the use of federal military forces in domestic law enforcement. The threat to “send in the military” isn’t about safety; it’s about power and generating fear—fear as a political weapon, fear to silence dissent.

As a military veteran, graduate sociologist, and former chief of police, I know that fear does not produce safety—trust does. The management of public safety, like good parenting or good government, depends on cooperation, fairness, and mutual respect, not domination or intimidation.

Some defenders of this dangerous idea point to the Insurrection Act of 1807, a federal law that allows the President to deploy the military within the United States under very narrow circumstances. Historically, it has been used during times of extreme national crisis—when insurrections, rebellions, or violent civil unrest have made it impossible for states to maintain order or enforce federal law.

But the Act does not authorize using the military to address ordinary crime, social unrest, or local political disagreements. Today’s cities are not in rebellion against the United States government, nor are they unable to enforce the law. To use the Insurrection Act to “fight crime” in politically targeted cities would be a gross abuse of presidential power and a dangerous step toward authoritarian rule.

Sending combat troops into our nation’s cities to “fight crime” is like using a hammer to perform heart surgery—brutal, reckless, and most certainly deadly.

This is not presidential leadership. It’s a blatant march toward autocracy. The answer to our challenges as a free people will never be found in fear, but in the courage to live together peacefully, respectfully, and justly under the rule of law. That’s who we are—and who we must continue to be.

This is not just misguided. It’s illegal, unnecessary, and deeply, deeply un-American.

First, there’s no credible evidence showing that American cities are experiencing some unprecedented “crime wave.” Yes, crime fluctuates—as it always has—but the numbers simply don’t justify a military response. And even if they did, policing a free society is not the work of soldiers. It’s the work of trained local police who know their communities, work with them, and are held accountable to them.

If cities need help shoring up their police services, there are legitimate ways to do it—federal grants, community-based programs, partnerships with the Department of Justice or other agencies. But soldiers are not police officers. They are trained for combat, not controlled, legal guardianship.

Sending military troops into our cities would violate the very principles of our democracy that define us. It would also likely violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which flat-out bars the use of federal military forces in domestic law enforcement. The threat to “send in the military” isn’t about safety; it’s about power and generating fear—fear as a political weapon, fear to silence dissent.

As a military veteran, graduate sociologist and former chief of police, I know that fear does not produce safety—trust does. The management of public safety, like good parenting or good government, depends on cooperation, fairness, and mutual respect, not domination or intimidation.

Yes, to send combat troops into our nation’s cities to “fight crime” is like using a hammer to perform heart surgery—brutal, reckless, and almost certainly deadly.

This is not presidential leadership. It’s a blatant march toward autocracy. The answer to our challenges as a free people will never be found in fear, but in the courage to live together peacefully, respectfully and justly under the rule of law. That’s who we are and who we must continue to be.