This single sentence will fast-track Trump to a prison cell
alternet.org -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 6:53:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Economic Policy & Jobs, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations
Donald Trump says he's deploying the military to Washington, D.C. because of a "crime emergency," but armies don't do policing: Their job, and their training, is to blow things up and kill people.
They have no training in evidence-chain-of-custody, arrest procedures, civil rights protections, criminal investigation, or any other aspect of policing. Sending the military to do policing is like inviting the neighborhood butcher to perform your brain surgery.
In America, it's also illegal. Under Posse Comitatus, the American military is explicitly forbidden from engaging in any police activities against civilian populations. Even though the Trump administration is bragging that the National Guard arrested almost 50 people on Tuesday in D.C., the Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Armies are really good, however, at facing down large crowds of protesters.
Trump is planning to go the Lukashenko and Putin route and is determined not to go down the way Yoon did. That -- along with distracting us from his alleged raping of underage girls with his "best friend" Jeffrey Epstein -- is why he's militarizing Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles.
These are test runs for when his crimes, corruption, and excesses -- particularly if the feds intervene to help Republicans steal the 2026 elections -- become so severe that Americans are in the streets in large enough numbers to present a threat to his regime.
He learned that lesson from the George Floyd protests, and may well be visiting Putin in Alaska this week to get further instruction in how to deal with protesters. It's why the Pentagon is proposing a "Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force" made up of military members who can deploy within hours to any city in America to put down "civil disturbances."
If Trump really intended to do something about crime in D.C., he would have directed his efforts toward fixing the root causes of crime: poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, drug addiction, homelessness, and lead in the water pipes, all areas where D.C. ranks among the worst of American cities.
If D.C. was truly lacking policing resources, he'd be sending in Military Police (who are actually trained in policing) or shifting budgets around to give more money to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department itself.
But, of course, he did none of the above; instead, he's sending in troops.
The last time Trump was confronted with protesters he demanded Gen. Mark Milley have soldiers "shoot them in the legs." Milley refused, so Trump and Hegseth have decapitated the senior ranks of the military, replacing them with toadies willing to do whatever Dear Orange Leader wants.
You can see where this is going.
We're in the early stages of autocratic breakthrough, the consolidation-of-power phase when a leader who's planning to turn a democracy into an autocracy seizes control of all the various branches of government and makes sure the military is entirely loyal to him, rather than the rule of law.
So, now he is testing how far he can go and what kind of pushback his actions will produce from the public, the press, and the legal system.
The Trump administration has arrested a Democratic mayor, a Democratic judge, a Democratic member of Congress, and beaten a Democratic United States Senator to the ground. They've deployed the military, over the objections of the governor and mayors, into first Los Angeles and now Washington D.C.
The nation's chief law-enforcement officer, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, said:
"We are staying here to liberate the city [of Los Angeles] from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city."
And the National Guard troops are still there. Angelinos and D.C. residents -- and, by extension, all Americans who monitor the spectacle on TV -- are expected to get used to having heavily armed military forces in our streets. Soon, Trump's people hope, it'll seem "normal," just like they're trying to normalize secret, masked Rosgvardiya-style police who refuse to identify themselves, abuse citizens, and routinely break the law themselves.
The president demanded a military parade for his birthday and is threatening to revoke broadcast licenses from television networks. He's shut down funding for NPR and PBS. The Trump regime is ignoring court orders, including one from the Supreme Court, and Trump's press secretary says:
"The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process."
The Republicans on the Supreme Court have given him immunity from prosecution for crimes he commits while president, and rolled over repeatedly as he openly and blatantly violates both Constitutional requirements and historic political norms.
Republican members of Congress, with the possible exception of Kentucky's Thomas Massie, are terrified of Trump and have already sacrificed their independence and power. In the Senate, only Thom Tillis of North Carolina meaningfully stood against Trump and he was forced into retirement as a result.
With all three branches of government under his effective control, Trump is now threatening the media, crushing the independence of colleges and universities, receiving tribute and bribes from major corporations, and demanding changes to our voting systems that will make it harder for anybody who's not white and upper-middle-class to vote.
Don't be fooled. Trump and the billionaires and fascists he's assembled into his cabinet are right in the middle of the process of permanently ending democracy in our country. First he went after immigrants and trans people. Now he's targeting poor people in D.C.
Next, as he follows the Putin/Lukashenko/Orbán/Erdoğan playbook, it will be Democrats and white protesters. Particularly if he tries to steal the 2026 election.
Standing against this coming onslaught will take considerable courage. Hitler put down the White Rose Society, Putin killed Navalny and arrested his lawyers and supporters, Lukashenko and Erdoğan had their troops fire on angry crowds.
Our best hope is that, when the crackdowns come, enough of us can mobilize to bring about a rebooting of our democracy like average people did in South Korea last year as they restored democracy to that nation.
This is not a drill; these people have revealed themselves as genuine white supremacist fascists and they're not planning to back down or go away. Trump's deployment of troops to LA and D.C. prove it.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent announcement that former President Donald Trump intends to deploy military forces to Washington, D.C., under the guise of addressing a "crime emergency" raises significant concerns about the militarization of civil society and the erosion of civil liberties. This move is not merely a reaction to contemporary social unrest; it reflects a troubling historical trend in which military force is increasingly viewed as a solution to domestic issues, a phenomenon with deep roots in American history. The Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, is not just a legal guideline; it is a safeguard established in the aftermath of the Civil War to protect citizens from military overreach. The current administration's disregard for this principle demonstrates a willingness to undermine foundational democratic norms for the sake of political expediency.
The implications of deploying military forces domestically cannot be overstated. Historically, the military has been trained for combat and warfare, not for the nuanced and complex nature of policing. The use of armed forces against civilians blurs the lines between military action and civil rights. As seen in the Civil Rights Movement and more recently during the Black Lives Matter protests, militarized responses to peaceful assembly have often resulted in violence and suppression of dissent. When Trump refers to the need to respond to a "crime emergency," it is crucial to question whose interests are being served. Is this a legitimate concern for public safety, or is it an attempt to quell legitimate grievances arising from systemic injustices, particularly in communities of color?
Moreover, the historical context of law enforcement in the United States is rife with examples of systemic inequality and abuse of power. The police have often been used as instruments of state control over marginalized communities rather than as protectors of public safety. By shifting responsibility from local police departments to the military, the government risks deepening this cycle of violence and oppression. The current administration's approach highlights a failure to address the root causes of crime, such as poverty, unemployment, and inadequate mental health services. Instead of investing in social services that could alleviate these issues, federal resources are being redirected towards military solutions that perpetuate a cycle of fear and violence.
The broader context of Trump’s militarization strategy is also indicative of an authoritarian tendency that seeks to maintain power through intimidation. Drawing parallels with leaders like Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin, whose regimes have relied on violent suppression of dissent, we must recognize the potential consequences of such actions in the United States. The deployment of military forces to control civilian populations sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to further erosions of civil liberties and democratic practices. It is critical for citizens to remain vigilant and articulate their opposition to these tactics, framing them not merely as policy failures but as threats to the very fabric of democracy.
In conclusion, the decision to use military forces for domestic policing is not just a matter of tactical response; it raises profound questions about governance, civil rights, and the nature of democracy in the United States. As we witness this militarization unfold, it is essential for citizens to engage in informed discussions about the implications of such actions. By connecting historical lessons to current events, we can better advocate for policies that prioritize social justice and address the underlying issues that fuel crime, rather than resorting to militaristic and authoritarian solutions. Engaging with these discussions provides a vital opportunity for collective action and resistance against the normalization of military presence in our communities.
The deployment of military forces for domestic policing, as discussed in the article, raises profound questions about governance, civil liberties, and the role of the military in American society. This issue is not just a contemporary concern; it has deep historical roots that reflect America's ongoing struggle with civil rights, state power, and the balance between security and freedom. The Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the military's involvement in domestic law enforcement, was enacted after the Civil War, aiming to prevent the misuse of military power against citizens. This historical context underscores the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between military and civilian authority, a principle that is now under significant threat.
As mentioned in the article, the use of military forces to address civilian issues, particularly through the lens of “crime emergencies,” is not only a potential violation of the law but also a dangerous precedent. The militarization of the police—a trend that has been exacerbated over the past few decades—risks desensitizing both law enforcement and the public to the tactics used in military engagements. If the military is called on to quell protests or manage civil disturbances, it shifts the narrative from one of community policing and engagement to one of suppression and control. This transition reflects a broader pattern of governance that prioritizes order over justice, often at the expense of marginalized communities that are disproportionately affected by military-style policing.
In response to these developments, Americans who are concerned about the implications of militarized policing must take action through civic engagement and advocacy. It is crucial to mobilize around the principles enshrined in the Posse Comitatus Act and advocate for its enforcement. This can take the form of petitions, lobbying local representatives, and raising public awareness about the dangers of militarization. Communities can hold town hall meetings to discuss policing practices, emphasizing the need for accountability and transparency in law enforcement. By fostering dialogues that include voices from all segments of society, particularly those from communities most impacted by aggressive policing tactics, we can cultivate a more equitable approach to public safety.
Moreover, it is essential to challenge the underlying socio-economic issues that contribute to crime, as the article indicates. Rather than relying on military solutions, we should advocate for comprehensive social policies that address poverty, unemployment, and education. Supporting initiatives that promote mental health services, affordable housing, and drug rehabilitation programs is vital to creating safer communities. This approach not only addresses the root causes of crime but also aligns with a justice-oriented framework that prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment. Engaging with local organizations focused on these issues can amplify our impact and help shift public policy in a more humane direction.
Finally, it is important to remain vigilant against the erosion of democratic norms and civil liberties, particularly in times of crisis. The tactics employed by leaders who resort to militarization often reveal a fear of dissent and a desire to maintain control in the face of opposition. We must encourage a culture of dissent that recognizes the right to protest and demand accountability from those in power. By participating in peaceful protests, organizing community actions, and supporting civil rights organizations, we can uphold the values that define a democratic society. It is through sustained advocacy and collective action that we can push back against the militarization of our communities and ensure that our democracy remains resilient in the face of authoritarian impulses.
The article raises significant concerns about the militarization of law enforcement and the potential infringement on civil rights. Here are some actionable steps that individuals can take to address this situation and advocate for a demilitarized approach to policing:
### Personal Actions to Take
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: - Stay informed about the implications of using military forces in civilian policing. Share articles, books, and documentaries on the topic with your friends, family, and community.
2. **Engage in Local Activism**: - Join local groups that focus on civil rights, police reform, or community safety. Participate in meetings, discussions, and community events to raise awareness about the issues at stake.
3. **Support Affected Communities**: - Volunteer with or donate to organizations that work on issues related to policing, criminal justice reform, and community support, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or local grassroots organizations.
### Specific Actions
1. **Petition for Change**: - **Sign Petitions**: Find and sign petitions that advocate against the militarization of police forces. Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org often have ongoing petitions addressing these issues. - Example Petition: Search for petitions related to Posse Comitatus and local policing reform on platforms like Change.org.
2. **Write to Elected Officials**: - **Compose Letters/Emails**: Write to your congressional representatives expressing your opposition to the militarization of police and advocating for community-based solutions. - **Example Template**: ``` Subject: Opposition to Militarization of Police
Dear [Representative's Name],
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the use of military forces for civilian policing, as recently proposed by the Trump administration. This approach undermines our civil liberties and poses a threat to democratic governance. I urge you to advocate for community-based solutions that address the root causes of crime, such as poverty and lack of access to education and healthcare.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
- **Contact Information**: - For example, you can reach out to: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren**: - Email: https://www.warren.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez**: - Email: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 1651 Sedgewick Avenue, Suite 2, Bronx, NY 10453
3. **Engage in Local Government**: - Attend city council meetings or town halls to voice your opposition to militarized policing and advocate for budget allocations to social services that address crime's root causes.
4. **Social Media Advocacy**: - Use social media platforms to raise awareness about the dangers of militarized policing. Share informative posts, articles, and personal opinions to engage your network.
5. **Organize or Participate in Protests**: - Join or help organize peaceful protests advocating for police reform and against the militarization of law enforcement. Ensure that protests uphold the principles of safety, non-violence, and community solidarity.
6. **Contact Media Outlets**: - Write letters to the editor for local newspapers or submit op-eds that articulate the risks associated with military involvement in policing and promote community safety narratives.
By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a broader movement advocating for justice, community safety, and the protection of civil liberties. Engaging in dialogue, supporting community initiatives, and holding elected officials accountable are essential steps in promoting a more equitable society.