Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

Opinion

Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

Protestors in Chicago, August 2025

Credit: Angeles Ponpa

A federal judge recently blocked plans to deploy the National Guard to Chicago. But the battle over militarizing American streets is far from over. On Monday, a federal appeals court lifted a temporary restraining order and ruled that the National Guard can be deployed to Portland, Oregon, amid ongoing protests at the Macadam ICE Facility.

Every time political leaders propose sending troops into cities or float invoking the Insurrection Act, they test a fragile boundary that keeps democracy in check.


This isn’t just a legal or political question. It’s a moral one. And it carries consequences that linger long after the last Humvee rolls out.

When National Guard members are ordered to confront civilians, the effects are profound. Not only for the communities they might be sent into, but for the service members themselves.

Over the past decade studying the mental health of service members and veterans, I’ve learned that the deepest wounds don’t always come from combat. One of the most profound — and most overlooked — is moral injury. This isn’t the result of trauma or fear. It’s the psychological harm that occurs when people are asked to act in ways that violate their own deeply held moral beliefs.

The National Guard occupies a unique and often misunderstood place in American life. These are citizen-soldiers who live, work, and raise families in the same cities they might be called to deploy in. They are electricians, EMTs, office managers, college students, and parents.

They enlisted to respond to crises such as natural disasters, humanitarian emergencies, and threats to national security. Not to stand in opposition to their neighbors.

Sending National Guard members into our own cities poses an ethical burden few are prepared for. When troops are asked to point weapons at fellow citizens, the sense of purpose can quickly unravel into guilt and shame.

This is the essence of moral injury. It often begins with a betrayal — not by enemies, but by leadership. It’s what service members feel when they’re given orders that violate the very principles they signed up to defend. Veterans and service members who experience moral injury describe it as a fracture: not of body, but of conscience. A sense that part of their ethical self has been broken.

And the harm doesn’t end when the mission does.

Moral injury has been linked to depression, anxiety, substance use, and even suicide. It erodes confidence in leadership, in institutions, and in one’s own judgment. It doesn't stay in uniform. It comes home, affecting families, workplaces, and entire communities.

This is why the Posse Comitatus Act, passed after Reconstruction, prohibits the use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement. It was designed to protect both the public and the military's integrity. The Insurrection Act, which grants limited authority to deploy troops domestically, was intended for rare, extreme threats to public order, not as a routine response to political dissent or unrest.

Threatening these powers undermines democracy and damages the military's moral foundation. It also burdens service members with responsibilities they were never trained — or ethically prepared — to shoulder.

There are better ways to protect our cities and our democracy.

American cities do not need armed interventions. They need investment: in schools, mental health care, jobs, housing, and violence prevention. Public safety is built on trust, not troops. On strong social structures, not the threat of military presence.

If political leaders continue to rely on military power to control civilians, the harm will stretch beyond the communities patrolled. It will reverberate through the ranks of those who serve, and into the foundation of the democracy they swore to defend.

Moral injury is not just a wound of the soldier. It is a wound of the nation — inflicted when political leaders turn the tools of defense against the people they were meant to serve.

How we choose to wield power today will determine the integrity of both our military and our democracy tomorrow.

Rachel Hoopsick, PhD, MS, MPH, MCHES is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of Illinois. She studies moral injury, mental health, and substance use among service members and veterans.


Read More

An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Party Suicide
a piece of paper cut out of the shape of a donkey
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Democratic Party Suicide

A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

Keep ReadingShow less