Since taking office, President Donald Trump has frequently called upon the National Guard to maintain law and order in U.S. cities. His administration often cites the need to protect federal facilities and support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in confronting undocumented immigrants amid violent protests. Trump also highlights what he describes as the "lawless" conditions in cities governed by Democrats, suggesting that his political opponents are both defying federal authority and incapable of effective governance.

However, public sentiment appears to be against the militarization of law enforcement. Recent polling from Gallup indicates that 60% of Americans oppose deploying military troops to cities to combat crime, while only 39% support such actions. Additionally, 56% of respondents are against sending National Guard troops to urban areas, with 41% in favor.

A separate Reuters/Ipsos poll from early October found that 58% of Americans believe military force should be reserved for external threats. Only 37% think the president should have the authority to send troops into a state against the wishes of the governor. The National Guard, typically under state control, can be mobilized by the federal government during times of invasion or rebellion, or if the president cannot enforce U.S. laws with regular forces. Despite this legal framework, many citizens are uncomfortable with military presence in their cities.

Support for militarizing law enforcement is notably divided along party lines. Over 80% of Republicans support the temporary use of military forces, while fewer than 10% of Democrats agree, contributing to the overall opposition. This divide is particularly significant in large cities, which tend to lean Democratic, where residents may feel they should have the final say in such matters.

Despite the public's concerns, the Trump administration has continued to advocate for its stance. Recently, the administration argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that courts should defer to the president's authority as Commander-in-Chief regarding military deployments. They asserted that courts should not question the president's decisions about troop deployment, especially in matters of immigration enforcement and crime suppression.

This push for broad presidential powers raises concerns about potential future implications. Critics worry that a precedent could be set for future Democratic presidents to use military force for purposes such as enforcing gun control or environmental regulations. The current political climate, characterized by extreme tactics from both major parties, complicates the discourse around these issues.

Amidst this backdrop, incidents of violence have occurred that some argue bolster the administration's case for militarization. Recently, shots were fired at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Chicago, coinciding with reports of a gang issuing a "shoot on sight" order against CBP. Last month, a member of the Latin Kings gang was arrested for allegedly plotting to kill the U.S. Border Patrol Chief. In a separate incident, a sniper targeted an ICE facility in Dallas, resulting in casualties among detainees. These events contribute to the ongoing debate about the role of military forces in domestic law enforcement and the implications for civil liberties.