Keep Police Out of Political Theater

Last month, without the request or consent of the State of California, the Trump Administration deployed National Guard troops, and placed Marines on standby, in response to protests in Los Angeles. Whatever one thinks about the protests themselves, the deployment should alarm anyone concerned with the rule of law, the structure of American democracy, or the role of local law enforcement in public life.

This move did not just violate political norms. It exposed a dangerous legal and operational gap: Local police departments and sheriff’s offices usually cooperate with federal agencies guided by bespoke agreements. In this context, there is not usually guidance on what police should do when the federal executive unilaterally sends troops into their jurisdictions. And police have already been drawn into the mess.

Not only have the California Highway Patrol and LAPD been asked to close roads and enforce curfews in response to protests, but LAPD officers escorted ICE agents into LAPD buildings. The mere presence of the National Guard and U.S. military in response to protests requires significant coordination with LAPD, and should state and local officers deploy alongside federal agents, it may be impossible for local communities to distinguish between the two.

This leaves state and local police to make decisions in real time, often under political pressure from multiple stakeholders, and with little to no framework to guide them. In some places, those decisions will be shaped by the politics or personal judgment of the local chief or sheriff. In others, they will be made behind closed doors, far from the public eye. In every case, the stakes are dangerously high: When there is not a compelling public safety reason for federal intervention, state and local police decisions will look like political endorsements.

When law enforcement officers are deployed alongside federally controlled troops without established rules, protections, or accountability mechanisms, it does not just compromise safety. It erodes trust in local government and the legitimacy of public safety institutions.

In moments like this, we must be clear: Local agencies should not be drawn into federally orchestrated actions that compromise their independence, entangle them in political demonstrations, or place them at odds with the communities they are sworn to serve. If the Trump Administration chooses to send troops into a city without that state’s consent, state and local law enforcement should not be asked to be part of those actions.

Importantly, police leaders already agree with this in principle. The Major Cities Chiefs Association has repeatedly maintained that “Any Congressional measure that would require state and local law enforcement agencies to engage in immigration enforcement is strongly opposed by the Major Cities Chiefs.”

Some cities have also attempted to draw that line before. Sanctuary policies, designed to limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, represent one of the few codified expressions of local resistance to federal overreach. But neither police declarations nor those policies were ever intended to address what happens when the military is deployed in our streets without a compelling public safety rationale.

That means our systems of public safety are not prepared for the situation now unfolding in Los Angeles. And we need to be.

States must establish a clear line in the sand. That means passing laws that do more than limit cooperation. We need enforceable standards that prevent local law enforcement from being drawn, by default or pressure, into federal operations that have not been authorized by the state. These standards must protect the operational independence of state and local agencies, insulate them from federal coercion, and reinforce the principle of civilian oversight.

This is not just a matter of policing policy. During the first Trump administration, I warned that executive overreach designed to expand federal influence over local law enforcement would pave the way toward a militarized domestic law enforcement posture, testing the structural integrity of American democracy. The use of Title 10 authority to deploy troops without state approval is exactly the kind of test we feared.

State legislatures, attorneys general, and national law enforcement associations must act now. This is a defining moment, not only for how we respond to protests, but for how we safeguard democratic control over public safety itself.