Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1747641530-scaled

Abolish and replace: Ending the militarization of policing in America

The proposals for change offered by the president, and from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, will not be enough.

Analysis | Global Crises

It is time to bury the militarized American style of policing now widespread in the 18,000 police departments in the United States. Say “defunding” or “dismantle,” but it is time for America’s police departments to be abolished and replaced by a new model of public safety. The president’s Executive Order, the Senate Republican bill, even the Democratic bill in the House are tired, retread prescriptions for incentives and encouragement of change; they do not change the fundamental realities of policing.

America’s militarized policing is steeped in racism; the model inherited its traditions and attitudes from the management of slavery. Its behavior is increasingly militarized in doctrine, practice, and equipment. This toxic mix has led to stunning repetition of provocative crowd control practices and equally repetitious police violence against America’s black citizens.

As a scholar and former policymaker in the national security world, not a specialist in policing, I am struck by the intersection and mirroring of a militarized foreign policy and militarized policing, both tone deaf to their essential missions — security. Policing in America not only mimics the doctrine and equipment of the military, but there has been a direct connection between the two “militarizations,” through training and subsidy.

In the videos of crowd control and arrests, America’s police forces look increasingly like the military, complete with full body armor, shields, face coverings, and an ever-growing array of potential lethal technologies on their belts. They carry and are surrounded by military weaponry — including armored vehicles designed to withstand the blast of an improvised explosive device used by insurgents in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — provided at generous discount through the military’s 1033 program that transfers surplus military equipment to the police.

Whether dealing with protestors, demonstrators, or individuals — policing doctrine emphasizes the unrestrained use of massed, “decisive” force in large numbers intended to intimidate, disperse, and dominate, an ironic twist on the Powell Doctrine the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff articulated during the 1991 military operation to remove Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait. The connection between military doctrine and tactics and policing is organic, through the post-9/11 focus on counterterrorism; training programs in CT have included thousands of American police.

As public spending for social services, education, housing, and civilian community well-being have eroded over the years, police forces have been given an expanding array of missions for which they are poorly, even counter-productively trained, including managing behavior around drug use, dealing with mental health dilemmas, intervening in family disputes, and border and immigration enforcement, border construction, among other policies.

If it looks like a military, acts like a military, is trained and equipped by the military, and is loaded up with missions that are underfunded elsewhere, it must be a quasi-military force. The pattern is strikingly familiar: be the front edge of security, seek dominance, use the most advanced and lethal equipment, and assume missions that are not core to military operations.

In the global arena, the consequences of militarizing our overseas engagement have been almost completely counter-productive. The military has not prevailed, and has failed at its ancillary missions, depleting its credibility, just as the police has today. The high technology of the military and the police has been inappropriate to the missions they have been given.

Relying on the military to perform non-core missions like governance and economic development has systematically weakened the agencies responsible for those missions. As police become social service providers, domestic jobs, housing, education, and health departments have been stripped of resources. Police budgets today — $6 billion with over 35,000 cops in New York City — are devouring municipal budgets.

Worst of all the more American foreign policy relies on the military, the more blow-back there is from the targets of that policy — countries rebalance against the U.S. and the nation’s reputation declines. Force begets force in our streets, not quiescence. And the gap between the police and the communities they ostensibly serve widens.

The military model of policing does not provide public safety for all Americans; it has not for more than a century. And it cannot be reformed. Historically, police forces find their origins in patrols that enforced the system of slavery in the South, and chased fugitive slaves to the North. The model was adopted across the country to enforce Jim Crow and segregation, more broadly, to break up political protests, and combat union organizing, and, in the more recent past, to fill American prisons disproportionately with African Americans. The police became tools of order, but not always tools of safety.

The police mission has too often been the enforcement of a social order that benefits white citizens, but keeps African Americans in their place. That mission has included: ensuring that injustice, inadequate access to education, health care, and housing, and higher rates of unemployment do not lead to exactly the kind of protests we have seen since George Floyd’s murder.

There will not be American peace until we rebalance the portfolio, invest directly in correcting those conditions for black Americans, and open up true equality and justice for all our citizens. That means fundamental change. Claims of “Law and order” simply perpetuate the injustice. And the reforms being put forward by Joe Biden and the Democratic Party in the Congress are simply “palliative care,” half-measures, many of them tried before, band aids like those that followed the Los Angeles and Detroit protests in the 1960s.

This is the moment to replace “military security” with a model of “domestic equality and justice” in policing, the criminal justice system, and socio/economic policy much as it is a moment to rebalance our global engagement away from the military.

The stranglehold the Fraternal Order of Police has had on reform makes this necessary. Better record-keeping, incentives for good police behavior, reformed training, more public data all have been tried in the past; all have failed to bring about basic change. They do not help weed out the bad apples; the barrel is rotten, with only a few good apples left.

If we are going to end knees on necks, carotid artery strangling, slams against police car hoods, dark police vehicles cruising low-income neighborhoods, lights flashing, massed police forces with shields and clubs, tear gas, pepper bombs and spray, clubbing and pushing, and many other practices, it cannot happen with incentives and palliative care.

“But what about the criminals,” my liberal friends ask, “do they just get to roam the streets amid chaos and anarchy?” This is largely a white fear, fear of the unknown, a fear of change. It does not deal with black fear, the fear of police violence at the slightest provocation, the fear of losing a child to an out-of-control police officer; the daily fear of walking the streets while black.

It is unfounded. There are many good, realistic, effective models for public safety, replacing the existing police forces. Communities like Camden, NJ, are lighting the way. Crime-ridden Camden abolished the existing municipal police force and replaced it with a re-recruited county-level force, different doctrine and tactics that have reduced murder rates and violent crime. Minneapolis and Oakland are considering similar approaches.

A new “public safety” model is emerging. One that ends military street doctrine, removes military equipment and weapons, diminishes the use of crowd control through tear gas, rubber bullet assault, shields, and clubs. One that ends stop and frisk and broken window policing. One that removes military equipment and returns it to military depots, replaces racist officers, fundamentally changes recruitment and training, and reduces the size of the force. And more: an end to the “qualified immunity” that has protected misbehaving police; citizen review boards with teeth, mayors and city councils with the intestinal fortitude to take on the FOP. And the redirection of resources to badly needed interventions on housing, jobs, social services, and mental health.

As with America’s global engagement, we need to demilitarize. Our policing today has failed and is an embarrassment to the United States abroad. It is time to start over, with a focus on justice, equality, and community control over the police.


Photo credit: Tverdokhlib / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Global Crises
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.