The Creeping Paramilitarization of America: How DHS is Rewriting the Rules of Domestic Law Enforcement
A chilling scene unfolded in Los Angeles earlier this month: a park, ironically named after General Douglas MacArthur, was “invaded” by a heavily armed force of U.S. military and federal agents. Their target? Children at a summer camp. This wasn’t a drill, and it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s a harbinger of a rapidly evolving reality where the lines between domestic law enforcement and military action are blurring, and the potential for abuse of power is escalating at an alarming rate.
The Expanding Arsenal of the Homeland Security Department
The operation at MacArthur Park, while shocking, is symptomatic of a broader trend: the dramatic expansion of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its agencies, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Congress has allocated a staggering $170 billion to DHS, enabling it to triple the size of ICE and double its detention capacity. This isn’t simply about border security; it’s about building a domestic paramilitary force with unprecedented reach and authority.
As former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Seth Stodder points out, DHS operates with a fundamentally different culture than agencies like the FBI. Lacking the historical constraints and internal checks that govern the FBI, DHS and its agencies are demonstrably willing to “push the envelope,” sometimes brutally. This willingness, coupled with expansive legal authority, creates a dangerous combination.
From Federal Buildings to City Streets: The Erosion of Boundaries
The 2020 deployment of Border Patrol agents to Portland, Oregon, provides a stark example of this expanding authority. Sent to “protect federal buildings” in the wake of George Floyd protests – against the wishes of state and local officials – these agents, dressed in military-style gear and armed with semi-automatic rifles, roamed the city, making arrests off federal property. This was enabled by the Homeland Security Act, which allows the DHS Secretary to designate employees to assist the Federal Protective Service and carry out activities “for the promotion of homeland security,” including making arrests for “any offense against the United States.”
This broad mandate effectively allows DHS to operate as a nationwide police force, unbound by the traditional limitations placed on local law enforcement. While the Fourth Amendment requires “reasonable suspicion” for stops and “probable cause” for arrests, the agencies’ willingness to operate in legally gray areas, and the potential for biased enforcement, remain significant concerns. A recent temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, blocking stops based on race, ethnicity, or accent, offers a crucial, though currently contested, check on this power. However, the appeal by the Trump administration signals a continued push to expand these authorities.
The Insurrection Act and the Militarization of Domestic Response
Beyond DHS, the potential for the direct deployment of the U.S. military within the country looms large. Under Title 10, the President can deploy troops and National Guard units, even against the wishes of state governors. While current law prohibits the military from enforcing domestic laws, the Insurrection Act provides a pathway to circumvent this restriction. Legal scholars widely believe that the current Supreme Court would likely defer to the President’s judgment in invoking the Insurrection Act, citing long-standing precedents that grant the executive branch broad authority in matters of national security.
The confirmation of Trump loyalists to lead the “power ministries” – the military, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the intelligence community – further consolidates control and increases the risk of politically motivated deployments. As retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley observed, controlling “the guys with the guns” is paramount for those seeking to exert authoritarian control.
The 2026/2028 Election: A Potential Flashpoint
A particularly worrying scenario is the potential deployment of these forces to “protect” future elections. The combination of federal troops and DHS paramilitary forces, as seen in the MacArthur Park operation, could be used to intimidate voters, suppress dissent, and undermine the democratic process. This isn’t mere speculation; it’s a logical extension of the current trajectory.
What Can Be Done? The Last Check on Power
The legal and institutional frameworks are increasingly tilted in favor of executive overreach. Congress has proven unwilling to act as a meaningful check on presidential power, and the courts, while offering occasional resistance, are likely to defer to the executive branch on matters of national security and immigration. This leaves a daunting question: who will stop this creeping paramilitarization of America?
As Bruce Springsteen famously sang, “the last check on power…are the people, you and me.” Vigilance, informed civic engagement, and a willingness to defend democratic norms are now more critical than ever. Understanding the scope of these powers, and demanding accountability from our elected officials, is the first step towards safeguarding our freedoms.
What steps will you take to ensure a free and fair election in 2026 and beyond? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
