Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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 empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less