Understanding the Role of the National Guard in Public Crises
The recent decision of the president to exercise federal control over the police force in Washington, D.C. and bring National Guard troops onto the streets of the capital has sparked numerous debates. This move is viewed by many as a significant departure from traditional governing practices.
Since the presidential order, hundreds of National Guard soldiers have been stationed around the capital, with more expected to arrive soon.
The National Guard's unique position among military branches allows it to respond to both state and federal governments. However, the president holds the power to activate a state's National Guard, even without the governor's cooperation.
For Washington, D.C., which lacks statehood, its National Guard reports directly to the president.
The National Guard in Times of Crisis
The National Guard has been frequently seen during crises, including weather disasters, riots, and even during the recent coronavirus pandemic. In the wake of the racial justice protests in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd, numerous states, including D.C., called upon their National Guards to assist local law enforcement, resulting in more than 5,000 troops patrolling the city.
However, the president's decision to use the National Guard as a blanket response to crime in D.C. — a city he has often described as out of control, despite a significant reduction in crime rate — is viewed as a significant shift from the intended role of the National Guard.
A Brief History of the National Guard's Deployments
While it's not uncommon for governors or the president to call up the National Guard in turbulent times, this wasn't always the norm. The nation's founders were initially skeptical of military intervention in domestic affairs.
Historically, the National Guard has been involved in various situations. George Washington led a contingent of the National Guard's predecessors to quell the Whiskey Rebellion, an uprising against an alcohol tax. President Abraham Lincoln called upon state militias at the start of the Civil War. More recently, presidents have generally respected the wishes of governors when deciding whether to deploy the National Guard.
However, during the Civil Rights Movement, presidents occasionally overrode states' rights to activate the National Guard, as was the case when President Dwight Eisenhower took control of the Arkansas National Guard to assist with public school integration. Similarly, in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson enforced his authority to control the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights advocates marching from Selma to Montgomery.
In the summer of this year, a break in this tradition occurred when thousands of California National Guard troops were federalized in Los Angeles to address protests against immigration raids — an action that is virtually unprecedented.
How the Recent Actions Differ?
Experts suggest that one major issue with deploying the National Guard in D.C. to tackle crime is that it is not equipped to handle law enforcement issues on a broad scale. The National Guard is designed to support police in law enforcement, not to enforce the law themselves, as outlined in the Posse Comitatus Act. Therefore, they are often unarmed and do not typically conduct arrests.
However, concerns have been raised as it was suggested that troops in D.C. might soon begin carrying service weapons. This has raised questions about the readiness of National Guard troops to use deadly force responsibly, given that they do not receive the same extensive training as the police.
This concern was highlighted in 1970 during the Kent State University protests in Ohio when National Guardsmen fired into a crowd of demonstrators, resulting in four deaths and nine injuries.
There is also a fundamental difference in perception between law enforcement and the military. While the police view the public as citizens who may be misbehaving, the military tends to view them as potential threats that need to be neutralized.