Muslim World Report

Trump Administration's Executive Order Boosts Military Policing

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | May 3, 2025 10:37 AM | 10 min read | 2055 words

TL;DR: The Trump administration’s new executive order fosters collaboration between the DOJ, DOD, and local police, raising alarms about the militarization of law enforcement. Critics warn this could escalate systemic injustices affecting marginalized communities and lead to civil unrest.

The Militarization of Domestic Security: A Threat to Democratic Norms

In a troubling development that underscores the increasing convergence of national security and local law enforcement, an executive order has been issued mandating collaboration between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Defense (DOD) with local police. This directive raises several alarm bells regarding the potential militarization of police forces, particularly against marginalized communities already bearing the brunt of systemic injustices.

Key Concerns Include:

  • Heavy-handed tactics reminiscent of practices witnessed in authoritarian regimes.
  • The blurring of lines between military operations and civilian policing, undermining public trust.
  • The risks of human rights abuses, as seen in Latin American countries like Colombia and Mexico.

Historically, the interplay between military operations and civilian policing has evolved in ways that frequently undermine public trust and democratic governance. As documented by Peter Kraska (2002), the distinctions between military and civilian law enforcement have become increasingly blurred, leading to a dangerous normalization of militarized policing practices in the U.S. This trend is further illustrated by the experiences of countries in Latin America, such as Colombia and Mexico, where the militarization of law enforcement has often resulted in human rights abuses and severe erosion of democratic values (Flores‐Macías & Zarkin, 2019; Dawn Paley, 2015).

The current executive order emerges against the backdrop of rising domestic tensions, where perceived threats to national security have led to military-style operations in civilian spaces. Critics warn that such militarization will disproportionately impact Black and brown individuals, who have historically faced over-policing. The call for enhanced local law enforcement capabilities through national security resources could lead to operations that mirror past U.S. interventions in foreign nations, where military assets were employed against civilian populations, exacerbating existing social tensions and injustices (Paret & Gleeson, 2016).

What If Military Action is Taken Against Mexican Cartels?

The Trump administration’s consideration of unilateral military action against drug cartels in Mexico marks a significant escalation in U.S. foreign policy toward its southern neighbor. Should this action be enacted, it would represent the first military intervention since the U.S. incursion into Veracruz in 1914. This move raises a host of strategic and ethical questions, particularly regarding the sovereignty of Mexico and the potential destabilization of the region.

If military action is taken, several outcomes can be anticipated:

  1. Strained Bilateral Relations: This could further burden relations already affected by interventionism.
  2. Destabilization of Mexican Governance: Mexico’s government, led by President Claudia Sheinbaum, has made considerable strides in tackling drug trafficking through increased law enforcement efforts.
  3. Exacerbation of Violence: Aggressive tactics often drive cartels to adopt more violent and desperate measures in response to perceived external threats.

Moreover, the evolution of drug cartels into organized paramilitary or terrorist entities could be exacerbated by U.S. military intervention. The complexities of the drug trade—root causes such as poverty, lack of education, and limited economic opportunities—are often overlooked in favor of militarized responses that fail to address the underlying issues, leading to cyclical violence. Indeed, the militarization of the drug war has often transformed cartels into more formidable foes, complicating the potential for effective solutions.

Additionally, such actions could heighten insecurity in both countries, as cartels may retaliate not only against military forces but also against civilian populations. Increased military presence would likely lead to further civilian casualties and a potential refugee crisis as people flee violence. The repercussions would be felt throughout Central America and could provoke a humanitarian crisis on the U.S. southern border, challenging the capacity for humane and effective immigration policy.

What If Domestic Resources are Deployed in Urban Areas?

The potential deployment of military assets in urban environments to assist local law enforcement presents a significant challenge to civil liberties and community relations. The implications would be profound and chilling.

If military forces assist in policing, we risk crossing a dangerous threshold where the mantra of security supersedes civil rights. Such a response could lead to:

  • Mass surveillance
  • Increased arrests
  • Fatal encounters in marginalized communities

The collaboration between military and police forces could further alienate communities already grappling with systemic racism and police violence, deepening social divisions and mistrust. The historical precedent of using military tactics against civilians is rife with examples of gross human rights violations, a danger that could manifest in increasingly militarized urban landscapes.

This shift could also spark widespread protests and civil unrest as communities react to perceived attacks on their autonomy. History has shown that marginalized populations often bear the brunt of national security policies, leading to clashes between law enforcement and civilians. In turn, this could energize social movements advocating for police reform and a reimagined vision of community safety that prioritizes de-escalation and accountability over militarization.

The long-term implications of this scenario would likely involve a cycle of violence and response, further entrenching militaristic approaches to governance. The potential for escalating conflict could result in communities being transformed into battlegrounds rather than safe havens, drastically changing urban life and public perception of law enforcement.

What If There’s Increased Resistance to Militarization?

In response to these concerning developments, what if there is a surge in grassroots resistance to the militarization of domestic security? Citizens, informed by a history of civil rights struggles and contemporary challenges, could mobilize against the growing presence of military in civilian life.

This resistance could manifest in various ways:

  • Civil disobedience
  • Community organizing
  • Advocacy for policy change

Activist groups might emerge or expand, focusing on educating the public about the dangers of militarization and demanding accountability from local and federal authorities. Community forums, town hall meetings, and social media campaigns could spring up to challenge dominant narratives and advocate for a return to policing that embodies community engagement and respect for human rights.

Increased awareness and mobilization around these issues could lead to meaningful policy changes at both local and national levels. Advocacy for stricter regulations on the use of military resources in civilian policing could gain traction, pushing lawmakers to reconsider the implications of militarization. In time, this resistance could stimulate broader societal dialogues around policing, criminal justice, and national security paradigms, potentially shifting policy in more humane directions.

Furthermore, a united front opposing militarization could foster coalitions among diverse communities, uniting various social justice movements under a common goal of restoring civil liberties and community trust. The resurgence of activism, alongside a critical examination of U.S. military and domestic policies, could put pressure on government institutions to prioritize dialogue, de-escalation, and respect for human dignity over coercive force.

Implications for Democratic Norms and Civil Liberties

The broader implications of militarization extend beyond mere policing. The reinforcement of military involvement in domestic affairs deeply blurs the lines between civilian law enforcement and military operations, creating a chilling precedent for the erosion of civil society. This scenario resonates with similar practices seen in El Salvador and Israel, where police and military collaborations have further entrenched cycles of violence and state repression (Herzog, 2001; Cohn, Kinsella, & Gibbings, 2004). The blending of military strategies with community policing not only undermines public trust but also perpetuates systemic racism and social division, ultimately threatening the very fabric of democratic governance (Walby & Monaghan, 2010).

The call for enhanced policing through military resources may open the door to more aggressive tactics that can lead to civil unrest, compounded by the increased surveillance and militarization of communities. Historical precedents reveal that such militarized responses lead not only to civil unrest but also to an escalation of violence between law enforcement and civilians (Morgan, 2014; Martin, 2015).

As military resources are deployed in urban areas under the guise of enhancing security, there is the potential for an unprecedented level of state surveillance, increased arrests, and fatal encounters in already marginalized communities. The collaboration between military and police forces could alienate vulnerable populations further, deepening social divisions and mistrust.

Global Context and Historical Precedents

The dynamics of militarization do not occur in isolation. Looking globally, we see that the intertwining of military and police functions has led to varying degrees of social discontent and governmental repression. In countries like Colombia and Mexico, militarization has often resulted in human rights abuses, societal unrest, and has entrenched cycles of violence that undermine democratic values. The reassurances of security through military intervention have, in practice, led to an erosion of civil liberties and the rights of citizens.

As the United States shifts its military policy regarding domestic policing, it is crucial to reflect on the lessons learned from these international experiences. Each case offers valuable insights into the often disastrous consequences of deploying military resources against civilian populations. The normalization of such practices not only threatens democracy at home but also sets dangerous precedents for international relations and domestic policy.

Strategic foresight must be exercised to avoid repeating the mistakes of history, where aggressive military responses exacerbate the very challenges they intend to alleviate. Engaging with affected communities to understand their needs and perspectives could foster a more effective, compassionate approach to safety and justice.

Pathways Toward Reform: Strategies and Recommendations

As we navigate these complex intersections of domestic security, law enforcement, and civil liberties, it is essential for all stakeholders to consider strategic maneuvers that prioritize both community safety and human rights.

For the U.S. government, recalibrating its approach to national security is paramount. Instead of relying on military solutions, policymakers should invest in comprehensive community policing initiatives that foster trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. This could involve reallocating funds from militarized resources to programs that tackle the root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and mental health services.

Furthermore, engaging in meaningful dialogue with impacted communities can facilitate a better understanding of their needs and concerns. Establishing independent oversight bodies to review law enforcement practices, particularly in regions disproportionately affected by militarization, can help rebuild trust and accountability. This approach could serve to alleviate fears of oppression, enhancing community cooperation with law enforcement.

For civil society organizations and grassroots activists, the focus should be on mobilizing community voices against militarization. This involves educating the public about the consequences of military involvement in policing, advocating for policy reform, and building coalitions across various social justice movements. Increased advocacy for legislative measures that prohibit military assistance in local police operations could also gain momentum and catalyze significant change.

Internationally, collaboration with other nations facing similar challenges can yield valuable insights and strategies. Countries grappling with the war on drugs, for example, can learn from each other’s experiences, ultimately fostering more humane and effective approaches to addressing criminal enterprises without resorting to militarization.

In summary, the trend towards the militarization of domestic security poses a significant threat to democratic norms and civil liberties, particularly for marginalized communities. By critically assessing the implications of this shift and advocating for alternative strategies that emphasize community safety, accountability, and respect for human rights, stakeholders can work toward a more just and equitable society.

References

  • Cohn, C., Kinsella, H. M., & Gibbings, S. (2004). Women, Peace and Security Resolution 1325. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 6(1), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461674032000165969

  • Dawn Paley. (2015). Drug War as Neoliberal Trojan Horse. Latin American Perspectives, 42(3), 10-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582x15585117

  • Flores‐Macías, G. A., & Zarkin, J. (2019). The Militarization of Law Enforcement: Evidence from Latin America. Perspectives on Politics, 17(3), 672-688. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592719003906

  • Herzog, S. (2001). Militarization and demilitarization processes in the Israeli and American police forces: Organizational and social aspects. Policing & Society, 11(2), 163-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2001.9964861

  • Kraska, P. B. (2002). Militarizing the American criminal justice system: The changing roles of the armed forces and the police. Choice Reviews Online, 39(5). https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.39-5879

  • Martin, G. (2015). Crack in Los Angeles: Crisis, Militarization, and Black Response to the Late Twentieth-Century War on Drugs. Journal of American History, 102(1), 162-173. https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jav260

  • Moulin, R. K., Burruss, G. W., Parry, M. M., & Fox, B. (2018). Assessing the Direct and Indirect Effects of Legitimacy on Public Empowerment of Police: A Study of Public Support for Police Militarization in America. Law & Society Review, 52(4), 827-859. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12379

  • Walby, K., & Monaghan, J. (2010). Policing Proliferation: On Militarization and Atomic Energy Canada Limited’s Nuclear Response Forces. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52(2), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.52.2.117

← Prev Next →