WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump on Friday signaled a willingness to use active-duty U.S. military forces to combat crime in major American cities, a controversial stance that revives a contentious debate over the role of the armed forces in domestic law enforcement. The comments immediately drew scrutiny from legal experts and civil liberties advocates, who point to long-standing prohibitions against such actions.

Speaking at a press conference on Friday, Trump praised the work of the National Guard in assisting local police but suggested a more formidable force could be an option. "I really am honored that the National Guard has done such an incredible job working with the police," he said, according to a report by Axios. "And we haven't had to bring in the regular military, which we were willing to do."

The remarks, specifically mentioning cities like Chicago and New York, touch on a central and legally sensitive principle of American governance: the separation of military and civilian authority.

The Posse Comitatus Act and Its Exceptions

At the heart of the issue is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, a federal law that generally forbids the use of the U.S. Army and Air Force to act as a domestic police force. The law was enacted after the Reconstruction era to prevent federal troops from enforcing domestic laws in the states. While the Navy and Marine Corps are not explicitly named in the act, Department of Defense policy applies the same restrictions to all branches of the military.

However, the prohibition is not absolute. The Insurrection Act of 1807 provides a president with the authority to deploy active-duty troops domestically under specific, extreme circumstances, such as to suppress an insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracy that hinders the execution of state or federal law. Historically, its use has been rare and often controversial, invoked during events like the 1992 Los Angeles riots and the integration of schools in the South during the Civil Rights movement.

Invoking the Insurrection Act to combat city-level crime would be a dramatic and unprecedented expansion of its application, likely facing immediate and robust legal challenges from state and local governments.

A Controversial "Law and Order" Stance

This is not the first time Trump has suggested using federal force to quell urban unrest or crime. During his presidency, particularly in the summer of 2020 amid widespread protests, he threatened to deploy the military to "dominate the streets." While he ultimately relied on federalized National Guard units and other federal agents, the prospect of using "regular military" forces remains a potent and divisive political message.

Critics argue that deploying soldiers trained for combat on American streets would escalate tensions, erode public trust, and risk violating citizens' constitutional rights. Proponents of a stronger federal response, however, argue that state and local leaders have failed to control violent crime, necessitating more drastic measures.

The distinction between the National Guard and the "regular military" is critical. National Guard units are primarily under the command of state governors and are frequently called upon for domestic emergencies like natural disasters or civil disturbances. When federalized by the president, they come under federal command but are still generally viewed differently than active-duty combat troops from the Army or Marines being deployed in a law enforcement capacity.

As political rhetoric intensifies, Trump's latest comments ensure that the boundaries of presidential power and the role of the military in American life will remain a central point of debate. The proposal forces a national conversation about the balance between security, federal authority, and the legal traditions designed to keep military power separate from civilian life.