Over the past week, President Trump has deployed more military troops to the streets of Los Angeles than there are stationed in Iraq and Syria. The president has warned that if protests break out in other cities, he’ll send troops to “attack” with even greater force. “You’ll have them all over the country,” he said.
That would be a mistake. Deploying soldiers to any American city isn’t just at odds with the principles of our democracy. It’s tactically unsound. Let me be clear: I admire the honorable men and women who serve in our military. But they are not the right tool for this mission — certainly not under these conditions and not without first exhausting the substantial civilian resources already in place.
I speak from experience. Over the course of more than 40 years with the Los Angeles Police Department — including nearly six as chief of police — I’ve seen what works and what doesn’t in times of civil unrest. I was an officer during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when federal troops were last deployed to our streets. I witnessed the confusion and the risks created by sending soldiers trained for combat into a civilian environment. Even basic commands like “cover me” were misunderstood — interpreted by troops as calls for gunfire rather than tactical positioning. Whereas police officers are taught to use time, distance and de-escalation, soldiers are trained to apply overwhelming force.
There is no question that serious unrest and violence have occurred in parts of downtown Los Angeles. Attacks on buildings and threats to public safety must be taken seriously. But this is not an insurrection. These incidents are localized, and local law enforcement agencies are fully capable of addressing them.
California’s emergency response infrastructure is among the most advanced in the country. Its emergency management system and mutual aid plan allow it to request help from neighboring law enforcement agencies, the California Highway Patrol and, when needed, the California National Guard. I have overseen the activation of these systems in response to both natural disasters and overwhelming disorder. They work — and they are rooted in principles of local control, coordination and public accountability. Deploying federal troops undermines all three.
The roles of the military and law enforcement are fundamentally distinct. Police officers are trained to protect constitutional rights, use measured force and remain accountable to civilian oversight. They operate within a legal framework grounded in probable cause and community trust. The military, by contrast, is designed for combat operations under a chain of command that originates in Washington. Military training, equipment and tactics are optimized for warfare — not for safeguarding civil liberties or managing peaceful protest.
History reminds us of the dangers of blurring these lines. The tragedy at Kent State, where unarmed student protesters were gunned down by National Guard troops, offers a stark warning. The federal government’s deployment of military personnel now risks causing the same escalation, tragic error and lasting damage to public confidence.
Sending in federal troops should always be a last resort, used only in cases of widespread collapse of civil authority and only at the explicit request of local leaders. That is not what happened in Los Angeles. The deployment appears to have been initiated without meaningful consultation or coordination with city or county officials. That is unacceptable. Effective policing depends on local leadership — on the knowledge and credibility earned by those who live and work in the communities they serve.
This is not just a matter of proper procedure. Without a unified command structure, clear rules of engagement and accountability mechanisms, introducing military personnel into a volatile environment introduces more risk than reassurance. Who’s in charge? What are the rules? What happens when missions conflict or orders diverge? These are not questions to be figured out after boots hit the ground.
I’ve spent my career emphasizing the importance of proportionality and discipline in the use of force. I’ve also witnessed the damage that occurs when those standards are not met. After the 2020 civil unrest in Los Angeles, civilian oversight held officers accountable for instances of excessive or unjustified force. That accountability is a cornerstone of civil policing. It does not exist in the same way in military operations.
None of this is to say the military has no role in supporting civil authorities. In times of natural disaster, true insurrection or total collapse of civil order, federal troops may be warranted.
But this moment calls for clear thinking, not coercive overreach. It demands leaders who know the difference between strength and domination. The streets of Los Angeles — and cities across America — should be protected by those who are trained and equipped to serve with restraint, accountability and a deep understanding of the communities they serve.
Our democracy depends on it.
Michel R. Moore served in the Los Angeles Police Department for more than 40 years before retiring in 2024.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post I Ran the L.A.P.D. I Know What Happens When Troops Are Sent to American Cities. appeared first on New York Times.
