DC Crime Isn’t an “Emergency,” but Normalizing Troops in U.S. Streets Is - Brennan Center

DC Crime Isn’t an “Emergency,” but Normalizing Troops in U.S. Streets Is

Source: Brennan Center for Justice

Date of Publication: August 11, 2026

Author: Joseph Nunn. Nunn is a counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. He focuses on issues surrounding the domestic activities of the U.S. military, including the Insurrection Act, the Posse Comitatus Act, National Guard deployments, and martial law. His work advances policies that allow the president to respond to emergencies without sacrificing the separation of powers or Americans’ constitutional rights.

Nunn is the coauthor of “An Army Turned Inward: Reforming the Insurrection Act to Guard Against Abuse” (Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 2023) and author of the Brennan Center reports Limiting the Military’s Role in Law Enforcement (2024) and Martial Law in the United States (2020). He regularly comments for television, radio, and print media on issues relating to domestic deployment and military participation in law enforcement. His writing has been featured in publications including Democracy Journal, Lawfare, Slate, The Hill, and Just Security, and he has been interviewed for PBS NewsHour, the Associated Press, The Economist, Rolling Stone, and WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show, among others.

He is a graduate of University of Chicago Law School and Tulane University.

You can read the full article here.

Summary: In this commentary, Joseph Nunn argues that the continued deployment of thousands of National Guard personnel in Washington, D.C., represents a significant shift in the relationship between emergency powers, civilian government, and the military. He contends that ordinary urban crime, unlike sudden disasters or insurrections, does not constitute the kind of unforeseen emergency traditionally understood to justify extraordinary executive authority or prolonged military involvement in civilian policing. The article further examines the constitutional tradition of limiting domestic military deployments, questions the effectiveness of the ongoing operation, and argues that the greatest long-term concern is not simply the deployment itself but the normalization of a military presence in ordinary civic life.

Why We Are Recommending This Article: ISSE is recommending this article because it addresses one of the Institute's central research questions: how exceptional governmental powers can become normalized beyond the circumstances that originally justified their use. Regardless of one's views on the author's constitutional or policy conclusions, the article highlights an important theoretical distinction between a genuine emergency requiring extraordinary measures and the continued exercise of exceptional authorities after an emergency has become routine or contested. It also raises broader questions about the temporal limits of emergency powers, the constitutional role of the military in domestic governance, and the institutional risks that arise when extraordinary security measures become embedded within ordinary political and administrative practice. These issues lie at the heart of ISSE's ongoing work examining how emergency governance evolves over time and how constitutional guardrails can be preserved.

On August 10, 2026, the White House released the following statement about the effectiveness of measures taken over the preceding year since the declaration of the D.C. “crime emergency,” and a broader statement on August 11, 2026 regarding the national level results from the administration’s law-and-order agenda since taking office.