In recent months, the current administration has sent National Guard troops into several major cities, many of them led by Democrats, under the stated goal of “restoring order” and “reclaiming safety.” It’s a move that looks decisive on the surface. But beneath it lies a deeper, more troubling question: Why these cities, and why now?
According to U.S. News & World Report’s latest “Most Dangerous Cities” rankings, the majority of the top 25 are located in Republican-led states. Memphis, Tennessee, ranks No. 1. Mobile, Alabama; Little Rock, Arkansas; and Oklahoma City also make the list. Noticeably absent are Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, the very places being held up as justification for troop deployments.
If this were truly about crime, the data do not support the choice of targets. So what is driving it? Some observers fear it’s less about safety and more about symbolism, using Democratic cities as political theater to normalize the presence of armed troops in urban America. And once we normalize soldiers patrolling our streets, it’s a short leap to accepting them there during something as sacred as an election.
People are also reading…
The president recently said out loud what many feared: “Last month, I signed an executive order to provide training for quick reaction forces that can help quell civil disturbances ... it’s the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it gets out of control.”
That phrase, “enemy from within”, should chill every American. When leaders start framing domestic dissent or unrest as an internal enemy, the line between policing and militarization begins to disappear. We saw that line blur disastrously at Kent State in 1970, when the National Guard opened fire on student protesters. The question isn’t whether that tragedy will repeat, but whether we’re quietly preparing the stage for something like it.
Even the rhetoric surrounding these deployments has taken a dangerous turn. Pete Hegseth’s remark, “To our enemies, F-A-F-O”, might have drawn applause, but it signaled something darker: a willingness to turn the tools of war inward, toward fellow citizens. The applause that followed says as much about us as it does about him. When the language of domination replaces the language of service, democracy starts to erode from the inside out.
Supporters argue the National Guard has always been used to keep peace at home. True, but historically under strict limits and civilian oversight. What’s new is the casual tone, the ease with which military presence is being sold as a show of strength rather than a measure of last resort. We should be asking who defines “civil disturbance” and what happens when peaceful protest or political opposition gets labeled as such.
This moment also calls for reflection from those in uniform. Every member of the armed forces swears an oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath was never meant to justify turning weapons or tactics designed for war onto American neighborhoods. Soldiers are not pawns in a political game, nor a personal guard for any president, no matter who occupies the office.
The real issue is not just about deployments, but about conditioning. The more often troops appear in our streets, the easier it becomes to accept them there. The more leaders talk about “enemies within,” the easier it becomes to see neighbors as threats. And the more we cheer that kind of power, the closer we drift to the world our founders feared most, one where military might outweighs civilian will.
Every American, regardless of party, should be asking: When did we become comfortable seeing our own military in our streets? When did the sight of soldiers in fatigues stop being a last resort and start being a political backdrop?
Because history has already shown us, once those boundaries blur, they are almost never restored without a fight.
As a Senior Security Specialist with a Master’s in International Security Studies, Kelley Benson analyzes the nexus between economics, global stability, and national resilience.
