This is why you don't use the military for law enforcement

Military training is vastly different from law enforcement training, and a commander who doesn’t know the difference puts everyone at risk.

Reuters/ photo illustration USA Today

Back in August, a publication written by and for US military members warned about the dangers of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital.

The Military Times, credibly ranked as having no political bias, complained that the real threat to 2,300 troops deployed to DC wasn’t Trump’s imaginary ‘magnitude of violent crime’ in war-torn domestic environs, but domestic assignments that rendered them sitting ducks.

Military analysists had warned for months that such deployments presented a “heightened threat environment” that was both hurting morale and risking the lives of enlisted soldiers.

Uniformed troops raking leaves in the US capital because they had nothing else to do also contradicted Defense Secretary Hegseth’s focus on ‘lethality’ and “warfighting ethos.” After Hegseth announced that any activities distracting from lethality “shouldn’t be happening,” his rake-wielding fighters were mocked by foreign media outlets as “Trump’s lethal landscapers.”

The US military is legally and functionally different from law enforcement

For over 150 years, for reasons traced back to the founding era, using military troops for domestic law enforcement has been illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act. Unless there’s an insurrection or rebellion, two specific words denoting specific conditions on the ground, a president cannot deploy the US military to enforce federal, state, or local law. The Insurrection Act, widely understood as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, also requires specific conditions on the ground such as rebellion or an extreme level of violence necessitating military assistance.

Despite the clarity of federal law, Trump has sent military troops to US cities in the absence of rebellion, insurrection, or widespread violence, using a revolving door of justifications from “quelling violence in Democratic-controlled cities” to “supporting deportation initiatives,” which is another form of domestic law enforcement.

Whatever excuse Trump trots out, the US military is not allowed to be used for law enforcement because it puts members and the public at heightened risk of escalating violence.

The military’s primary mission is to defend the nation against foreign threats. Combat-ready military forces are trained to defeat adversaries through readiness and weapons training on lethality, resilience, and mission readiness in hostile environments, prioritizing skills like weapons proficiency, combat tactics, and survival. In obvious distinction, law enforcement officers are trained to enforce domestic laws and protect civilian populations, goals that are best accomplished through de-escalation, proportionality, and the preservation of life. Simply put, the training and mission of law enforcement are not the same as the military, and a commander who doesn’t know the difference puts everyone at risk.

Attacking the truth

On November 20, 2025, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s deployment of the military to the nation’s capital was illegal, and ordered an end to it. On November 26, still deployed despite the Court Order, two members of the National Guard were tragically shot outside a D.C. Metro station while on foot patrol.

After one of them died, instead of offering introspection or comfort, Trump immediately lashed out, doubled down, and blamed Biden. Trump told the press, “There was no vetting or anything. They came in unvetted. And we have a lot of others in this country, we’re going to get em out.”

A reporter then pointed out that Trump’s own DOJ Inspector General confirmed the vetting, so why, exactly, was Trump was still blaming Biden? Trump exploded, “Because they let them in. Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person? Because they came in on a plane along with thousands of other people who shouldn’t be here, and you’re just asking questions because you’re a stupid person.”

Trump obviously attacked the questioner because her question didn’t fit his narrative: The shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was thoroughly vetted by both the CIA and the FBI when he previously worked with the CIA in Afghanistan, assisting in US combat missions.

Doubling down on lies won’t make the US safe

Military advisers have long warned that putting American military members on city streets put them in increased danger. After the DC shooting, a member of the California National Guard texted The New York Times that he “knew that this would happen.” Having served six years in the Guard, the soldier said he and his commanders worried that the assignment “increased our risk of us shooting civilians or civilians taking shots at us.”

Instead of rethinking the obvious danger of putting military troops on US streets, Trump has decided to double down. He’s deploying 500 more troops to DC, and trying to stop immigration from poor nations entirely. DHS announced further that, “The Trump Administration is also reviewing all asylum cases approved under the Biden Administration.” Except, as Reuters pointed out, Lakanwal wasn’t granted asylum by Biden. He was granted asylum this year, by the Trump administration.

While Trump sends even more military into US cities against federal law, Hegseth is frothing at the mouth with orders to “kill them all,” murdering non-combatant civilians on the high seas and creating radicalized anti-American neighbors.

Unless ranking officers and more members of Congress start speaking out, pushing back hard on obviously illegal orders, the tragedy in DC is only the beginning. If Trump continues, two troops shot by a radical in DC could escalate into dozens, hundreds, or thousands of deaths among US military and civilian populations alike. At that point, we’ll look back on the events of last week and wonder why we didn’t learn from them.