The Trump administration is sending more federal agents to Portland. Over the past week, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) forces in Portland have violently worked to suppress largely peaceful protests. They’ve detained individuals without probable cause or even identifying themselves as law enforcement while dressed in full military tactical gear.
Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf maintains the agents are there to protect federal property and enforce federal law, but their tactics have not focused narrowly on those vandalizing the courthouse. President Trump has announced that he wants to send federal law enforcement to other cities, including Seattle, Chicago and Albuquerque, to help “drive down violent crime.”
While the forces deployed in Portland are not U.S. military, the use of federal agents is likely to undercut the relationship among the democratically elected government, the military and the public — what specialists call “civil-military relations.” Here’s why.
These actions undermine norms of civilian control over armed agents.
U.S. civil-military relations are built on the idea that democratically elected civilian officials are in control of armed servants of the state, and that both those civilian officials and the forces they direct are accountable to the people at large. In theory, this applies not only to federal officials’ control of the military, but also to state and local government officials’ control of the police.
But in Portland, local law enforcement leaders have unofficially worked with federal forces despite objections from both local and state government officials. This amounts to a decision by local law enforcement to adjudicate a political dispute between federal and state authorities, and to side with the feds.
Are the Trump administration’s actions in Portland lawful? Are they constitutional?
Norms of civilian control are difficult to restore once undermined. Political scientists Ron Krebs and Robert Ralston’s research shows that Americans are increasingly comfortable having civilian leaders defer to the armed forces; the events in Portland may worsen that problem. If law enforcement officers, who are armed servants of the state, are not held accountable when they ignore their elected civilian leadership, that could legitimize the military ignoring federal government leaders.
When “police” look like soldiers, police abuses harm trust in the military, too.
DHS personnel seem to be deliberately styling themselves as a military-like force. As a result, military observers — including Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper — are concerned that the public will believe DHS officers are military personnel and erroneously blame the military for illegal and unpopular actions.
That’s a possibility. Before Portland, national polls already showed substantial dissatisfaction with heavy-handed police responses and plurality opposition to using the military against protesters. A military-like police response could reduce trust in the military overall and widen the partisan gap in trust.
That could hurt military recruitment. The military already struggles to attract and retain people of color, women and politically liberal youth. Images of military-looking men attacking people protesting police abuses — which mostly affect people of color — may deepen those difficulties.
In Portland and beyond, city and national leaders respond to protests very differently. Here’s why.
These events strain civil-military relations at the very top.
The actions in Portland also put pressure on Department of Defense (DOD) leadership and further pit federal agencies against each other. DHS has complied with Trump’s vision and has curried favor with the White House. In contrast, DOD leadership has been more cautious and conservative about appearing to carry out the president’s domestic agendas.
Trump appears to have learned that military leaders will push back against being used to police civilians at home. In June, Esper reversed the president’s decision to send active-duty troops to Washington, D.C., to quell protests. Given this, Trump may be using DHS personnel to avoid this resistance.
Scholars of bureaucratic politics note that agencies need resources to stay relevant and maintain political influence. Given recent friction between the Department of Defense and the White House, and since Trump can point out that DHS cooperates with him more, Pentagon leadership might feel pressure to comply with Trump’s policies to avoid presidential retaliation or a loss of influence. Even highly respected organizations, such as the military, are vulnerable to these pressures.
Moreover, this administration has dismissed or seen the resignation of high-ranking officials who resisted the president’s policies, afterward appointing loyalists. Ideally, military leadership can express policy concerns directly to the executive without fear of retribution. If military leaders feel they must toe the line to maintain access to resources, it could further erode healthy civil-military relations. Such patterns reinforce the troubled civil-military relations within the Trump administration.
An internal security force with military capabilities but without military accountability is dangerous.
The way the administration is using federal agents in Portland effectively creates a centralized internal security force, politically controlled by the president. While democracies often have centralized national police forces, they typically bring highly specialized skills that local law enforcement lacks. In Portland, however, DHS firepower and tactics have gone beyond what’s necessary to enforce federal laws. Rather, they seem intended to encourage fear and divide the electorate, while violating protesters’ civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Part of why Americans give the military the power it has is because members are bound by key restrictions and subject to unique rules, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which includes special laws and responsibilities about the use of lethal force to protect the public interest. The federal agents in Portland are not bound by such rules. A high percentage of officials at DHS haven’t been confirmed by the Senate in what some observers call an “end run” around the Vacancies Act. Congressional oversight is hampered by a fragmented committee system. All of this violates healthy norms of oversight by civilian bodies.
Democracy, federalism, policing and the relationship between the elected civilian officials and the military are deeply entwined. They cannot be addressed in isolation. Blurring the line between police and military could create an internal security force accountable to only one political branch or official. This could seriously undermine the delicate balance of U.S. civil-military relations.
The TMC newsletter has moved! Sign up here to keep receiving our smart analysis.
David T. Burbach (@dburbach) and Lindsay P. Cohn (@lindsaypcohn) are associate professors of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. The views they express are their own and do not represent the position of any organ of the U.S. government.
Danielle Lupton (@ProfLupton) is associate professor of political science at Colgate University and the author of “Reputation for Resolve: How Leaders Signal Determination in International Politics” (Cornell University Press, 2020).