That said, there are numerous scenarios in which the military can provide assistance to police, including by giving them “information” obtained “in the normal course” of their duties, unless applicable privacy laws prohibit it. Military members can also provide police with a wide variety of assistance so long as it’s in a “private capacity” and they’re off duty. Additionally, they can provide “expert advice,” so long as it doesn’t count as serving a function core to civilian police work.
The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment; however, a staff member in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy confirmed for WIRED by phone the current set of policies under which deployed federal troops must operate.
There is one major caveat to the military’s restrictions. During an “extraordinary emergency,” military commanders may take limited, immediate action to prevent massive destruction or to restore critical public services, but only so long as presidential approval is “impossible” to obtain in advance. And while military personnel are naturally expected to maintain order and discipline at all times, under no circumstances are they required to stand down when their lives, or the lives of others, are in immediate danger.
Still, enforcement of these rules in the field is far from guaranteed. Legal experts warn that adherence often varies in chaotic environments. Trump administration officials have also demonstrated a willingness to skirt the law. Last week, homeland security secretary Kristi Noem asked the Pentagon to authorize military assistance in conducting arrests and to deploy drone surveillance, according to a letter obtained by The San Francisco Chronicle—a move experts say directly contradicts standing legal prohibitions.
At a press conference on Thursday, Noem stated the federal government was on a mission to “liberate” Los Angeles from “socialists” and the “leadership” of California governor Gavin Newsom and LA mayor Karen Bass. US Senator Alex Padilla, who represents the citizens of California, was forcibly removed from the press conference after attempting to question Noem. Outside the press conference room, federal agents forced the senator to the ground, where he was temporarily placed in handcuffs.
Unlike the National Guard, which is well trained for domestic crowd control, active-duty Marines generally receive relatively little instruction in handling civil unrest. Those who do typically belong to military police or specialized security units. Nonetheless, the Marine Corps has published footage online showing various task forces training with riot-control tactics and “nonlethal” weapons. Constitutional concerns do not arise, however, when Marines face off against foreign mobs—such as in civilian zones during the Afghanistan war or on the rare occasion protesters breach the perimeter of a US embassy. And wartime rules of engagement are far more lenient than the rules of force by which Marines must adhere domestically.
In a statement on Wednesday, US Northern Command, which oversees military support to nonmilitary authorities in the contiguous 48 states, confirmed the Marines had undergone training in all “mission essential tasks,” including “de-escalation” and “crowd control.” They will reportedly be accompanied by legal and law enforcement experts.
Constitutional experts warn that deploying military forces against civilian demonstrators blurs the line between law enforcement and military power, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for unchecked presidential authority. The risk deepens, they say, if federal troops overstep their legal bounds.
If lines are crossed, it could open a door that may not close easily—clearing the way for future crackdowns that erode Americans’ hard-won civil liberties.
