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

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

Getty Images, miroslav_1

They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

Keep ReadingShow less