Last week, President Trump activated the National Guards of California, New York and Washington in support of the novel coronavirus pandemic relief effort. Trump used the authority under Title 32, which means the federal government will pick up the bill while governors retain operational control.
By March 26, governors from the other 47 states and three U.S. territories, as well as the mayor of the District of Columbia, had also called up National Guard members under their control using state funds, bringing the total of National Guard personnel involved in the response to nearly 12,000, in addition to thousands more active-duty personnel and reservists.
These mobilizations prompted rumors and conspiracy theories. Some claimed the military was preparing to institute massive shelter-in-place quarantines and enforce curfews throughout the country. Others implied that the military was planning to institute martial law, where it would assume responsibility for governance in place of incapacitated civilian leaders.
Both these scenarios are highly unlikely. But the U.S. military is likely to play a large supporting role in the pandemic response, just as it has during other domestic crises. Here’s how.
The military’s role is likely to grow
Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper has stated that the Department of Defense wants “to be the last resort” in relief efforts amid the outbreak of the coronavirus that causes the disease covid-19. The 2018 National Defense Strategy — unlike previous defense guidance — contains no mention of the military’s role in pandemic response, instead prioritizing great power competition with China and Russia.
This reluctance is understandable. The military is not a substitute for a public health infrastructure and cannot be expected to lead the charge against covid-19. Pulling active-duty assets and personnel away from their primary missions creates real costs in terms of training and military readiness.
How the coronavirus will affect the US military.
Speed and capacity are critical in a pandemic — and that’s what the military can provide better than any other government organization. In the past three weeks alone, the National Guard has mobilized more personnel for the covid-19 response than are on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s entire payroll. As the virus spreads and manpower needs increase, the last resort may be the only viable option.
It’s about manpower, organization and logistics
The Defense Department will probably deploy medical assets such as field hospitals and mobile labs. And the USNS Comfort and Mercy hospital ships will add capacity to treat non-coronavirus patients in New York and Los Angeles, respectively. Military laboratories will also contribute to vaccine development, something they have excelled at throughout history.
But the most substantial military contributions are likely to focus on what the military does better than civilian agencies, especially at a large scale: providing manpower, organization and logistics quickly. Large numbers of young, healthy military personnel can clean and disinfect common areas or medical facilities, screen and in-process patients at understaffed hospitals, stock shelves if supply chains break down, or support medical personnel and local police if requested.
Trump declared two different kinds of emergencies for covid-19. There might soon be 52.
The military can also provide trucks, helicopters and other aircraft to help deliver supplies within cities and states, or even throughout the country if FEMA requires urgent support to reallocate federal stockpiles or distribute supplies to other locations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is already expanding hospital capacity in New York by executing contracts to quickly renovate unoccupied buildings to increase the number of beds in intensive care units.
Could the military become involved in law enforcement?
Governors and the president alike have broad powers to call on military assistance during a domestic emergency. Governors, in particular, face almost no practical restrictions in their employment of the National Guard. The Posse Comitatus Act, which applies only to active-duty troops (and fully federalized National Guard), is less restrictive than is commonly understood.
There are multiple statutory provisions for presidential use of federal forces for law enforcement and keeping of the peace, and such use has been normal — although not frequent. President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the post-Civil War Enforcements Act to send an army division in 1957 to desegregate schools in Little Rock, Ark. President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to send a Marine division and an Army division to help quell the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
The coronavirus is expanding the surveillance state. How will this play out?
But presidents generally use federal forces only in cases where they believe local and state forces are unable or unwilling to maintain law and order.
Would Trump be likely to use the military to impose martial law? The National Guard bureau chief, Air Force Gen. Joseph L. Lengyel, has denied these rumors, and the president has stated there will not be a nationwide lockdown. It is possible, however, that the National Guard — and even active-duty troops — could play a role in enforcing localized quarantines, limiting movement or securing critical infrastructure.
Last weekend, the president floated the idea of an enforceable quarantine for the New York metro area before Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) stated such action would be an “federal declaration of war” on his state. Rhode Island’s governor announced she would restrict the movement of out-of-state visitors. Kentucky’s governor may close the border with Tennessee.
If a state’s police capacity becomes overwhelmed — which is a possibility if the coronavirus begins to spread through local law enforcement agencies in an already-overwhelmed location, troops on alert usually provide the fastest way to reinforce civil authorities. National Guard units are most likely to play these roles, but active-duty troops remain an option.
Still, using soldiers this way carries risk, as most service members are not trained as police. Soldiers not as familiar with the law would be more likely to violate citizens’ rights or find themselves in situations where they are not prepared to determine whether an order is lawful or not. Nevertheless, the military has been used as law enforcement in domestic crises before — and it may well be used again.
Lindsay Cohn is an associate professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College.
Jim Golby is an Army officer serving as a defense policy adviser at the U.S. mission to NATO.
The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the Naval War College, the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense.