Use of federal forces to control local policing raises constitutional concerns

Professor David M. Crane writing on JURISTnews:

The current political climate in the United States has raised serious concerns regarding the potential overreach of executive power. At times, these methods have been reminiscent of historical authoritarian regimes. In particular, the tactics employed by the Trump Administration to consolidate power—specifically the use of federal law enforcement agencies and nationalized National Guard units—raise concerns familiar from historical studies of authoritarian consolidation, including Adolf Hitler’s use of the Sturmabteilung (SA), or “Brownshirts,” which were instrumental in intimidating opposition and enforcing state control.

In the early 20th century, Hitler’s SA played a critical role in a broader strategy of instilling fear, suppressing dissent, and rallying the populace behind a singular vision of nationalism. The SA operated with impunity, often engaging in violent confrontations with political opponents, which helped create an atmosphere of disorder that the Nazi regime claimed it needed to counteract. Through this manipulation of public perception and political unrest, Hitler positioned himself as a necessary arbiter of stability, ultimately leading to the erosion of democratic institutions.

Today, the use of federal forces to assert control over local jurisdictions raises significant constitutional concerns. President Trump’s deployment of federal police to cities facing unrest and his indication of utilizing the National Guard to quell protests is reminiscent of tactics used to maintain order under the guise of restoring peace. One must question whether these actions align with the constitutional framework that delineates the separation of powers and protects citizens’ rights against governmental overreach.

The Constitution mandates that the federal government respect the autonomy of states and their governance structures. The utilization of federal resources to intervene in local matters, especially without a clear constitutional mandate, poses a serious threat to state sovereignty and democratic governance. Such actions can be perceived as an attempt to intimidate and control, potentially leading to the suppression of political dissidence and the chilling of free speech.

The Trump administration’s history of defying the judiciary sets a dangerous precedent. The principle of checks and balances is foundational to our democracy; disregard for judicial authority undermines the rule of law and paves the way for autocratic tendencies. The potential for Trump to declare martial law under the pretext of restoring order—especially in a fraught electoral environment—is particularly alarming. Such a move would not only be borderline unconstitutional but could also be seen as illegal if done without legitimate cause or congressional authorization.

Concerns mount as the 2026 elections approach. The possibility of declaring martial law to circumvent electoral processes or suppress dissent should not be treated as far-fetched. With the heightened stakes of losing control of Congress, the temptation for an authoritarian grab becomes more pronounced. The implications of such a scenario are dire: the suspension of democratic processes, the potential cancellation of elections, and the establishment of a government that operates outside the bounds of constitutional law.

The comparisons drawn between Trump’s actions and historical authoritarian regimes serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of democracy. The use of intimidation tactics to enforce executive power threatens the very essence of our democratic institutions. As citizens and legal scholars, it is imperative to remain vigilant, advocate for the rule of law, and ensure that our democracy is not only preserved but strengthened against authoritarian encroachments. The historical lessons from the past underscore the importance of accountability and the collective responsibility to safeguard our constitutional rights against any form of overreach. Trump may be banking on wearing down the electorate hoping that American citizens will just give up and let him take perpetual control.

To read more CLICK HERE