Why the U.S. military is not a law enforcement organization

  • November 21, 2025
  • Share
Members of the National Guard standing in Washington, D.C.

The historical fear of domestic military deployment in the United States is deeply rooted in the nation’s founding experience. The Boston Massacre, where British troops stationed in Boston fired into a civilian crowd, killing five, profoundly influenced the Founders’ wariness of standing armies as law enforcement. 

It’s no surprise then that our Constitution deliberately enshrines core individual rights while dividing government authority across three branches. While the president serves as Commander-in-Chief, Congress declares war, funds the military, and decides when to suppress insurrections and repel invasions; courts have the power to review the justifications for invoked authorities. Other signs of their wariness about the power of the military to crush civil society dot our historic documents and federal code, including:

  • The Third Amendment bans the quartering of soldiers.
  • The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prohibited the use of the Army and Air Force as domestic law enforcement agents unless expressly authorized by Congress.
  • The original Articles of Confederation, the governing charter that preceded our constitution, outright banned standing armies.

What’s the difference between the military and law enforcement?

The military and law enforcement each serve as armed elements of the state, but have very different functions, training, and legal requirements. Federal court decisions like Graham v. Connor emphasized that all force must be objectively reasonable in specific circumstances. While the military seeks to destroy and neutralize, law enforcement aims to restore order with minimal harm, so it’s not surprising that troops in civilian contexts polarize Americans who believe local law enforcement is best suited, undermining public trust in the government. 

The military

The military’s primary mission is to defend the nation against foreign threats through combat-credible forces capable of deterring or defeating adversaries. Its training focuses on lethality, resilience, and mission readiness in hostile environments, prioritizing skills such as weapons proficiency, combat tactics, and survival. The military operates under Rules of Engagement (ROE) informed by national policy and the Law of Armed Conflict, which permits more aggressive and lethal responses to threats. Violations are addressed through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Law enforcement

Law enforcement exists to uphold the Constitution, enforce domestic laws, and protect civilian populations, emphasizing de-escalation, proportionality, and the preservation of life. Law enforcement is guided by constitutional protections and domestic criminal law, with use-of-force governed by Rules for the Use of Force (RUF), which are more restrictive and require that lethal force be used only as a last resort, when there is an imminent threat of serious harm.

International examples of authoritarians using military might to crush civil society abound. In 2016, for instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) used troops to round up political opponents and critics, including members of the press, in a successful effort to consolidate power following a failed coup attempt. An alleged “war on drugs” provided former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte cover to deploy troops across his country, who killed scores of people without trial and intimidated critics and the press.

Mixing the military into domestic affairs risks overwhelming civil society, individual freedoms, and the rule of law – and can be deadly for civilians. The U.S is now edging into these risks despite research indicating public preference to keep the military out of domestic law enforcement matters, including the National Guard.

Ultimately, those who volunteer for military services have opted to perform meaningfully different duties than those who sign up to join the local police department, ICE or another domestic law enforcement agency. The laws and standards that guide them are fundamentally different as they are built for very different missions. Blending the two poses risks to the American public, the members of the military, and the foundational tenets of our democratic republic.