History Shows Federal Agents Don鈥檛 Stop Civil Unrest

Militarized federal interventions can actually escalate conflict and often leave the underlying causes of protests or crime unresolved.

The U.S. Justice Department has , where a police shooting left an , Jacob Blake, paralyzed. The Aug. 23 shooting triggered fury, protest and nights of deadly conflict.

Kenosha is the latest city to in demonstrations against police violence. Citing its to stop 鈥�,鈥� the Trump administration sent to Portland and Seattle in July. In May, after the police killing of George Floyd, it .

Wisconsin鈥檚 governor . But in , local leaders rejected Trump鈥檚 offer of help. Armed federal agents, who clashed violently with protesters, were ultimately .

Constitutional restrictions largely prevent heavily armed ; federalizing local law enforcement is historically rare. But my research finds militarized federal interventions can have unintended鈥攁nd often negative鈥攃onsequences.

Growing militarization

In sending federal agents and soldiers to suppress protests, the United States is part of a global trend.

France, for example, instead of designing deescalation strategies to quell its famous yellow vest protests, has been to confront demonstrators, a decision that鈥檚 come under intense scrutiny.

And last year, when a washed across Latin America鈥攚here militarized law enforcement has been 鈥攄emonstrators in Ecuador, Brazil, Peru and beyond were confronted with extreme force by their countries鈥� militarized police forces.

Chilean president Sebastian Pi帽era actually and sent out soldiers in tanks.

Whether their mission is to suppress protests or stop crime, international evidence shows that deploying security forces from government agencies whose primary function is armed conflict or national security鈥攏ot public safety鈥�.

Mexico鈥檚 war on cartels

Take Mexico, for example, which began to send soldiers and federal police to combat drug cartels in 2006. Violence skyrocketed in the places where troops were present.

Those areas were already dangerous, but statistical analyses show that than it would have in the absence of troops. My own research in Ciudad Ju谩rez, on the border of Texas, found evidence that the Mexican Army and the Federal Police even committed , and other abuses while stationed there.

Looking at Latin American countries that militarized their response to crime, researchers the resulting escalation of violence to a combination of causes. Soldiers and national police forces have higher-grade weapons and little personal contact with the local population. Additionally, they are trained not in de-escalation but in , and often have an mentality.

And when local authorities are bypassed or overridden by having federal agents sent there, on the other hand鈥攁s occurred in Washington, D.C., Portland, and Seattle鈥攊t .

That undermines the mission and further increases the potential for violence. In Ciudad Ju谩rez, for example, the overlapping jurisdictions of local police and federal officers gravely hindered their ability to fight drug cartels, as a acknowledged.

Trust in soldiers

With all these documented challenges, why send federal agents into cities at all?

Federal agencies can provide resources, intelligence, and networks that local police lack. And when local, state, and federal authorities work together to coordinate their missions, these deployments may be successful.

For brief periods over the past decade, both and saw short-lived but substantial safety improvements when local, state, and federal authorities worked together to battle organized crime. Eventually, though, violence rose again as .

In both places, long-term, non-militarized strategies to address the root causes of violence remain weak.

In many countries, too, the military is far more popular than the police. So in times of trouble and polarization, national leaders can find it politically expedient to call on the credibility of the armed forces.

In the United States, 80% of people surveyed in 2018 believed the military 鈥渨ill act in the best interests of the public,鈥� . Meanwhile, . Just 33% of Black Americans think police use the 鈥渞ight amount of force,鈥� compared to 75% of white Americans.

And a meager , Pew finds. Similar trust gaps between the military and other government institutions are seen in and .

When federal troops are sent in to volatile situations, though, they can . Such deployments can end up undermining citizen confidence in the military, while leaving the underlying causes of protests or crime unresolved.

This article was originally published by聽. It has been published here with permission.

Ang茅lica Dur谩n-Mart铆nez is an Associate Professor of Political Science at聽University of Massachusetts Lowell. She holds an MA in Latin American and Caribbean Studies from New York University, and a BA in Political Science from Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Her research focuses on crime, violence, and illicit markets (particularly the drug trade), with a focus on Latin America. She has research research awards from SSRC-DSD Program, SSRC and USIP, and also was a Fulbright Scholar in 2004-2006.