Militarization of Policing: A Threat to Civil Liberties
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
Domestic Military Use
The domestic use of military forces in the United States, particularly in response to civil unrest and for immigration enforcement, is a growing concern. This trend carries potential implications for civil liberties and the delicate balance between national security and domestic law enforcement. A leaked memo suggests that a potential Trump administration in 2025 could escalate the domestic use of the military (newrepublic.com). This escalation would particularly target anti-immigration efforts, seeking greater Pentagon involvement in domestic enforcement (newrepublic.com).
The memo reportedly details talking points for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials to persuade Pentagon officials to increase their involvement in domestic enforcement (newrepublic.com). It references attacks on DHS officers and designates Central and South American cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations (newrepublic.com). Furthermore, new Pentagon rules are redefining the military's authority, allowing intelligence assistance in civilian operations and permitting lethal force in response to “imminent threats” (researchgate.net). These changes raise concerns about the blurring lines between national security and domestic law enforcement (researchgate.net). Critics warn that these provisions could lead to a dangerous militarization of civilian life, especially during protests or political unrest (researchgate.net). Proponents, however, argue they are necessary to address evolving threats (researchgate.net).
Militarized Policing
The militarization of policing and the deployment of federal forces in response to protests, particularly in Black communities, have historical precedents. These actions raise significant concerns about civil liberties and the targeting of specific populations. Protests in Los Angeles in June 2025, sparked by federal immigration raids, saw the deployment of the California National Guard and militarized police units (aninjusticemag.com). This highlights a long-standing pattern of militarization in policing within Black communities (aninjusticemag.com).
The use of federal troops to quell protests, as seen in Los Angeles, draws parallels to the militarized law enforcement tactics employed during the Civil Rights Movement (yahoo.com). There is a crucial difference, however. Presidents in the Civil Rights era used troops to protect people, whereas current deployments may be perceived as protecting the government from protesters (yahoo.com). The deployment of Black Hawk helicopters, mass surveillance tools, and federalized National Guard units in Los Angeles, along with reports of Marines being sent, reflects the “Imperial Boomerang” effect (zeteo.com). This is where tactics developed for foreign conflicts are applied domestically (zeteo.com). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created after 9/11, is seen as a template for how this “Imperial Boomerang” operates (zeteo.com). It combines immigration enforcement, border militarization, and counterterrorism, which can lead to arbitrary detentions and the persecution of migrants (zeteo.com).
The Posse Comitatus Act
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally limits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes (counterpunch.org). This limitation was put in place partly due to the white supremacist rollback of Reconstruction (counterpunch.org). President Rutherford B. Hayes withdrew federal troops occupying the former Confederacy since the Civil War (counterpunch.org). However, exceptions exist, particularly under the Insurrection Act, which allows the President to deploy federal troops within the U.S. if a state cannot maintain public order (counterpunch.org).
The significance of its potential violation lies in the historical intent to prevent the military from interfering with civil liberties. This concern is rooted in the founding of the U.S. The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution (theconversation.com). This led the founders to insert roadblocks to make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs (theconversation.com).
The Imperial Boomerang
The “Imperial Boomerang” effect refers to the phenomenon where tactics, technologies, and ideologies developed and used by a nation's military or security forces in foreign conflicts or colonial contexts are subsequently brought back and applied domestically. This can manifest as the militarization of domestic law enforcement, the use of surveillance technologies, or the adoption of counter-insurgency strategies against internal populations. The concept suggests a cyclical relationship where external military engagements influence internal policing and social control.
The provided search results illustrate the practical application of the “Imperial Boomerang” by discussing the increasing militarization of both local and federal police forces in the United States (issforum.org). The deployment of federal tactical units, primarily intended to support the operations of their parent agencies, for a wide range of purposes, including addressing domestic protests and civil disturbances, exemplifies how capabilities developed for other contexts are used domestically (issforum.org). The ability of a president to “deploy forces that look and feel to local residents just like the military, without having to take the politically fraught step, which made some previous presidents deeply uneasy, of deploying the military itself into American cities,” highlights the domestic application of military-like force (issforum.org).
Understanding the Imperial Boomerang
Imperial Boomerang: This concept describes how military tactics and technologies developed for foreign conflicts are brought back and applied domestically. It often leads to the militarization of local law enforcement and the use of surveillance against a nation's own citizens. Source: (zeteo.com)
Pentagon Rules and Designations
The provided search results do not detail specific “new Pentagon rules on intelligence and lethal force” in a domestic context. However, they do indicate a trend towards increased domestic military involvement and the potential for expanded roles for federal agencies like DHS. This could imply evolving guidelines or interpretations of existing authorities. The historical context for changing military authority in domestic operations often stems from perceived threats to national security or public order, leading to re-evaluations of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act.
A leaked memo indicates that the Trump administration is pushing for greater Pentagon involvement in domestic enforcement, particularly regarding anti-immigration efforts (newrepublic.com). This suggests a desire for expanded military authority in domestic operations (newrepublic.com). The memo includes talking points for DHS officials to persuade Pentagon officials to get more involved in domestic enforcement, referencing attacks on DHS officers and the designation of Central and South American cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations (newrepublic.com). This implies a strategic effort to justify and expand military roles (newrepublic.com). The general trend of increased militarization of both local and federal police forces suggests a broader shift in the approach to domestic security, which could be influenced by or necessitate new rules or interpretations regarding intelligence and lethal force (issforum.org).
Terrorist Designations
The designation of cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations is a significant development that can broaden the scope of military involvement in domestic affairs. While the specific criteria and process for such designations are not detailed in the provided search results, the consequence is clear. It allows for the application of counter-terrorism frameworks and resources, including military assistance, to address these groups. This can have profound implications for civil liberties by potentially blurring the lines between criminal enforcement and national security operations, leading to increased surveillance, detention, and use of force.
A leaked memo reveals that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is using the designation of Central and South American cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations as a talking point to persuade the Pentagon to increase its involvement in domestic enforcement (newrepublic.com). The memo references Al Qaeda and ISIS alongside these cartels and gangs, suggesting an attempt to equate their threat level and justify a similar counter-terrorism response, which would inherently involve military capabilities (newrepublic.com). The implication of such designations is that they provide a legal and rhetorical basis for deploying military or military-like forces against these groups domestically, potentially expanding the reach of federal power and impacting civil liberties (newrepublic.com).
Impact of Terrorist Designations on Domestic Enforcement
Allows application of counter-terrorism frameworks and resources, including military assistance.
Blurs lines between criminal enforcement and national security operations.
Can lead to broader surveillance against targeted groups.
Increases risk of arbitrary detentions under national security pretexts.
Justifies higher levels of force against designated groups.
Historical Context of Militarized Policing
The historical context of militarized policing in Black communities in the U.S. is deeply rooted in the nation's history. Federal troop deployments often occurred during periods of significant social unrest or to enforce federal law against state resistance. During the Civil Rights Movement, federal troops were deployed to protect civil rights activists and enforce desegregation orders, often against the wishes of state authorities (theconversation.com). Current actions, while drawing parallels, differ in their stated purpose and the nature of the perceived threat. They often focus on immigration enforcement or general “public order” rather than the protection of specific civil rights.
The use of federal troops to quell Los Angeles protests in 2025 recalls militarized law enforcement during the Civil Rights Movement (theconversation.com). During the Civil Rights Movement, state authorities in Alabama and Mississippi deployed the National Guard themselves, intending to minimally protect Freedom Riders to block federal law enforcement (theconversation.com). This highlights a historical tension between state and federal authority regarding troop deployment (theconversation.com). The historical context includes instances like the 1862 war against the Mdewakanton Dakota (Santee Sioux) in Minnesota, which involved U.S. military forces and resulted in the execution of 38 Dakota men (counterpunch.org). This demonstrates a long history of military intervention in domestic affairs, often with severe consequences for marginalized communities (counterpunch.org).
Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It consolidated numerous federal agencies under one umbrella with the primary mission of preventing terrorist attacks within the United States. Its structure integrates various functions, including border security, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, and disaster response. DHS's role as a “template for militarized enforcement” stems from its broad mandate and its integration of immigration enforcement with counterterrorism efforts. This can lead to the application of national security tactics and resources to immigration issues, raising concerns about civil liberties.
A leaked memo indicates that DHS officials are actively trying to persuade Pentagon officials to increase military involvement in domestic enforcement, particularly in anti-immigration efforts (newrepublic.com). This highlights DHS's central role in advocating for militarized approaches (newrepublic.com). The memo references attacks on DHS officers and the designation of Central and South American cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations (newrepublic.com). This suggests that DHS views these issues through a counter-terrorism lens, thereby integrating immigration enforcement with national security concerns (newrepublic.com). Federal law enforcement agencies, including those under DHS, have largely remained exempt from efforts to mandate more transparency and oversight over local police (issforum.org). This allows them to deploy tactical units for a wide range of purposes, including domestic protests and civil disturbances, which contributes to their role as a “template for militarized enforcement” (issforum.org).
Civil Liberties Impact
Military involvement in domestic affairs poses several risks to civil liberties. Historically, such deployments have led to restrictions on freedom of assembly and speech, arbitrary detentions, and excessive force. In the future, increased militarization could further erode privacy rights through expanded surveillance, due process rights through expedited legal proceedings, and the right to protest peacefully due to the presence of armed forces. The blurring of lines between military and civilian law enforcement can also lead to a chilling effect on dissent and a normalization of military presence in everyday life.
The U.S. was founded in response to King George's heavy-handed use of the military to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of colonists (theconversation.com). This indicates a historical awareness of the threat military deployment poses to fundamental freedoms (theconversation.com). The founders of the U.S. Constitution were careful to insert roadblocks to make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs (theconversation.com). This demonstrates an intent to protect civil liberties from military overreach (theconversation.com). The increasing militarization of both local and federal police forces has resulted in higher rates of police violence (issforum.org). This directly impacts the civil liberties of individuals, particularly the right to bodily integrity and freedom from excessive force (issforum.org).
Civil Liberties at Risk with Increased Militarization
Restrictions on freedom of assembly and speech.
Increased risk of arbitrary detentions.
Higher incidence of excessive force.
Erosion of privacy rights through expanded surveillance.
Compromised due process rights.
Chilling effect on peaceful protest and dissent.
Oversight and Accountability
The provided search results do not explicitly detail oversight mechanisms for preventing the abuse of military power in domestic contexts. However, the historical context of the Posse Comitatus Act and the civilian control of the military suggest inherent, albeit sometimes challenged, checks on such power. Potential oversight mechanisms could include congressional review, judicial challenges, and public scrutiny. The lack of transparency and oversight for federal law enforcement agencies, as noted in the search results, indicates a significant gap in accountability.
The U.S. Constitution ensures that the commander in chief of the military is a civilian (theconversation.com). This is a foundational oversight mechanism designed to prevent military overreach in domestic affairs (theconversation.com). Federal law enforcement agencies have largely remained exempt from efforts to mandate more transparency and oversight over local police (issforum.org). This indicates a significant gap in accountability for these entities, which are increasingly involved in militarized domestic operations (issforum.org).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
