This expert shatters Trump's reasoning for troop surge that saw two shot in DC

When I heard the news about two National Guard troops who were shot in Washington before the Thanksgiving holiday, the first person I thought of was Radley Balko. He’s the author of The Rise of the Warrior Cop and publisher of The Watch, a newsletter. If anyone knows about the complex intersection of criminal justice and civil liberties, it’s him.

I wanted to ask what he thought. See the interview below.

West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, deployed a number of his state’s guardsmen to Washington as part of the president’s scheme to send military forces to US cities.

Donald Trump has suggested that local police departments are failing to fight crime.

But it was Washington police that not only caught the shooter, but shot him too. And now, in the wake of that crime, D.C. police are escorting Guard troops for their own protection. (Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said the guardsmen were targeted. One of them is dead, the other remains gravely injured. Meanwhile, the shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is hospitalized. He was charged with murder last week.)

Trump's gambit was never about crime-fighting, Radley told me. It was about an administration putting on a show of force.

“That's really what we've seen in D.C. Guard troops have been patrolling in low-crime, tourist areas, not in parts of the city with higher crime rates.”

But it would be a mistake to see this effort as part of a larger, decades’ long pattern of militarizing American police departments, Radley said.

The old debate was underscored by a shared understanding, he said — that democracies don’t use the military for law enforcement:

“What's happening now in some ways supersedes that debate. Trump wants to use the military itself for domestic policing. He's obliterating that shared understanding that this isn't something free societies do.”

The president has always wanted a paramilitary that’s loyal to him. In many ways, he now has one, not in the state National Guard but in ICE and Border Patrol. They are acting as if answerable only to him.

Therefore, accountability is going to be hard to come by, Radley said.

State and local authorities that have tried have faced daunting odds.

Even so, Radley said, “I think local prosecutors should try anyway.”

“The administration is encouraging a culture of aggression, lawlessness and racism,” Radley told me. “It's really dangerous stuff. So accountability has to come at the state and local level. Even if it's ultimately futile, I think it sends an important message that they don't get to just rampage through these cities with impunity.”

JS: Washington cops are now patrolling alongside National Guardsmen in Washington. Weren't the cops doing such a poor job that the National Guard had to get involved to fight crime? What is going on?

RB: D.C.’s crime rate has always been higher than that of other cities its size. There are lots of possible explanations for that. But when Trump deployed the National Guard, crime was going down in the city, after a surge during the pandemic (a surge that hit most of the rest of the country, too). Moreover, Guard troops aren't cops. They aren't trained to conduct policing patrols, respond to emergencies or threats, or to solve crimes. There's really no reason to deploy the National Guard other than as a show of force. And that's really what we've seen in D.C. Guard troops have been patrolling in low-crime, tourist areas, not in parts of the city with higher crime rates.

The two victims were targeted, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said. The shooter’s motive is still unclear. What's your best guess?

From what I've read, he was part of an elite, CIA-trained unit in Afghanistan who undertook extremely dangerous missions to aid the US war effort [the “War on Terror”]. And also from what I've read, other members of that unit have felt abandoned by the US government — as have other Afghans who assisted US troops during the war.

It looks like the Democrats are not arguing over crime rates and whether the President is justified in ordering troops to D.C. and other cities. They seemed to be focused on blaming Trump for the attack. Are they right? The news about the shooter being CIA-trained suggests there's more to blame the president for.

I won't claim to be a political operative. So while I don't know what would be most persuasive to the public, in terms of fostering public understanding, I think it's important to point out all of these things.

The crime rate is down in every city to which Trump has tried to send the National Guard to "fight crime." But also, he has zero authority to send the National Guard to fight crime. The National Guard isn't trained to fight crime. And Trump has offered different justifications for sending the National Guard depending on whether his audience is the federal courts, Fox News, the press, or someone else.

(In addition to "fighting crime," he has claimed it's necessary to send in the military and National Guard to carry out deportations, to put down protests, and because protests have inhibited the ability of federal law enforcement to carry out mass deportations.)

It's all been rooted in shameless lies and distortions of reality.

The truth is that Trump has always:

• Wanted a paramilitary force answerable only to him, and which he could deploy anywhere in the country for any reason.
• Expressed his admiration for strongmen and dictators who had such a force and used it to suppress dissent and put down their enemies.
• Neither understands nor cares much for the norms and laws that restrict a president's ability to deploy the military domestically.

The government has militarized civil society for many years now, especially since 9/11. Police departments, as you have written, are more or less small armies. Is a president sending troops to cities the end point of that process or more of the same with no end in sight?

It's really a new, disturbing, and in some ways ambiguous escalation.

The discussion about police militarization has always been grounded in a shared understanding that using the military for domestic law enforcement is a dangerous idea that free societies avoid. It isn't what soldiers are trained to do. And democracies that go down that road tend to not remain democracies for long.

The debate had been about whether the police were becoming too influenced by the military — whether the use of military weapons, uniforms, gear, and lingo was fostering in police an aggressive "us versus them" mindset that's inappropriate for domestic policing.

What's happening now in some ways supersedes that debate. Trump wants to use the military itself for domestic policing. He's obliterating that shared understanding that this isn't something free societies do.

Yet in some ways, police in the U.S. have become more "militarized" (for lack of a better term) than the military. I've often had police officials who agree with me on these issues tell me that officers who are ex-military tend to have a positive influence on other cops, because the military instills more discipline and accountability than modern police agencies do. We're seeing this play out right now.

The way ICE and Border Patrol have behaved in Chicago, LA, Charlotte and other cities is as aggressive, confrontational, and ugly as it gets.

It's actually hard to imagine the National Guard doing worse. It is made up of part-time citizens who tend to live in the communities where they're deployed (though Trump is changing that, too). They aren't immersed in toxic police culture. We saw this on display during Trump's first term, after the violent clearing of Lafayette Park in D.C. It was the National Guard troops and commanders who came forward to dispute the White House narrative about what happened.

That said, I do think what Trump wants to do with the military is dangerous. And as we've seen in other areas, if he encounters National Guard commanders and troops who aren't as aggressive and loyal as he wants, he'll remove them and replace them with people who are.

The president already has a paramilitary in ICE and Border Patrol. Democratic leaders like Illinois Governor JB Pritzker have ramped up their rhetoric. Are we seeing the makings of conflict, perhaps armed conflict, between state authorities and ICE and Border Patrol? Or is there a plan to keep a paper trail on ICE agents for future investigation by state prosecutors? What are you seeing?

It will be very difficult to prosecute ICE or Border Patrol officers in state courts. On the few occasions state prosecutors have tried, the DOJ has just had the case removed to federal court, then dropped the charges (this has been true in administrations from both parties). I think there's a real worry that submitting federal agents to local authority will diminish federal policing powers.

That said, I think local prosecutors should try anyway. Currently there's no accountability for these officers. They can't really be sued. Trump's DOJ won't prosecute them in federal court. And he's likely to pardon them from any prosecution in a future administration.

Meanwhile, the administration is encouraging a culture of aggression, lawlessness and racism. It's really dangerous stuff. So accountability has to come at the state and local level. Even if it's ultimately futile, I think it sends an important message that they don't get to just rampage through these cities with impunity.