Local Law Enforcement's Challenge: Uphold the Law, Even Against the Feds

David August

17 Nov 2025 — 8 min read

Trampled Constitution by author, contains Paper Document Old by lynn0101 from Pixabay

in the absence of action, civilians will fill the void

I do want to write something not so serious, maybe even funny, here soon. But today, I think the police have to do a very hard and necessary thing: defend Americans against their federal government.

If any other group arrived into a neighborhood carrying long guns, deploying chemical weapons, violently engaging and then taking people away with no warrants nor apparent legal reason, we would dispatch SWAT, as SWAT has the training to defuse and deescalate such situations.

Failing to do so now only defers and amplifies the consequences. Citizens left to take things into their own hands would be bad, and that is inevitable eventually unless other action is taken first to stop the lawlessness and violence of federal forces. ice/cbp/dhs continue to escalate and will continue to escalate unless and until they are stopped.

If federal forces get in a shootout, better with SWAT in a contained scenario that SWAT has identified as tactically possible for SWAT to prevail in, then some random, large scale, purely vigilante conflict random civilians select or the under-trained federal forces select.

And those are apparently the choices: law enforcement enforcing the law on federal forces breaking the law, or, eventually, ad hoc vigilantism.

The former is not awesome, it is a bit chaotic and a Constitutional crisis. The later will devolve into pure horror and harm. I have written before about how deferring a Constitutional crisis only amplifies it; President Jackson did it and helped fuel the Civil War. We need to solve for whether the rule-of-law will thrive, and we need to do it right now. If we don’t, harm without benefit is all that will remain.

If the president does get his wish of deploying standard military and national guard to use American cities as the military’s training ground, you will have apartment buildings being shelled, and suburban neighborhoods being drone struck or carpet bombed. In short, massive loss of life, and probably loss of order.

“We had to destroy the village to save it” is not a new American rationalization, and the imperial boomerang can and will, if we don’t stop it, bring it to bear on the American populace.

Can the US Army, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard, Space Force and Air Force pacify the entirety of the United States? No. And certainly not in any lasting way. Can they with all of the Reserves and National Guards as well? Also no. There are about 2 million military people in the US armed forces. The military itself knows you usually need roughly a 1 to 50 ratio to occupy an area, 1 soldier per 50 civilians. And if the area has an insurgence or hostile military presence, then it is likely closer to 1 to 40 or even more soldiers that are needed. 5 years ago people were getting violent after being told not to go to Applebees during the pandemic. The American people almost have a national case of oppositional defiant disorder, and can be apocalyptically violent if they get to that point.

And 2,000,000 simply cannot control 330,000,000 Americans who have more than one gun per person. 1 soldier for every 165 civilians is not a recipe for an occupation's success. And the 2 million members of the US armed forces are not all combat troops to begin with (and not all of them would likely follow an illegal order to engage Americans just because potus and miller want them to).

Can civilians stop the US Marines from taking a public park? No. And, permit me a tangent here: to the lasting humiliation and permanent dishonor of the US Marines and National Guard, we know there are Marines and Guardsmen who will try to take a public park from kids playing at camp because they did just that earlier this year. Their orders were illegal, and the Marines and Guard did it anyway. They should never hold their heads high again for they attacked what they swore to defend: the American People and the American Constitution. They now individually, severally and personally owe a dear debt to both.

This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Please Subscribe Here.

But back on the topic of that public park: the Marines can take it, but civilians can make it really painful to hold it. The US military recently learned, the hard way, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that occupying countries isn’t fun and without enough occupiers: it isn’t really feasible.

But a lot of people can be hurt, and a lot of destruction can happen, anyway. Massive damage is possible, and likely, if the administration's destructive goals encounter no obstacles. miller, musk and potus cannot actually make their technate fantasies come true, but they're trying to nonetheless, and hurting people and things in the process. That is why they threaten to invade Panama, Mexico and Canada and to them those threats make sense.

If the threats and plans coming from the White House didn't confirm it, I would sound like a mad conspiracy theorist. But federal recklessness, violence and chaos reigns. It seems in the absence meaningful professional protective action from the feds, locals are what remains.

Would state, county and local governments want to test the loyalty of their own police and see if their police would follow their civilian leaders, or will those police fold into supporting ice lawlessness instead? Lots of governments probably don't wanna find out; it's not a fun time to see what reality on that will be. I get their reluctance. I understand that pushing one's police force to take such risky action is scary. It is an issue that may have impact on local elections. I have brought it up to candidates. It is not ideal to task one's police force to arrest federal forces breaking laws and discover their loyalties.

Eventually that loyalty is probably gonna be clarified anyway, and it might be better to do it on terms one chooses as opposed to the happenstance that simply comes about.

And finding that a core element of a local force is loyal to the local government, and to the law, and is willing to take the risk of enforcing law on lawless feds (and it is a big risk) may be possible. Failing to find out may be inviting federal forces to commit further and further crimes as they escalate unchecked.

Will maga threaten the lives of any police that enforce the law on law breaking feds? Probably, unfortunately.

𝐿𝒶𝓃𝒶 "not yet begun to fight" @Lana@beige.party Marjorie Taylor Greene has been an enemy to the left for years. Never once has she had her life, or the lives of her family threatened. She's been the enemy of the right for one day and already she has had to hire security to protect her and her family from all the rape and death threats. Never tell me again both sides are the same. Nov 16, 2025, 04:37 PM — insight from Lana

When some of their most devoted are seen to stray from the maga party line, threats of violence can follow. It will take real risk taking, real bravery, to enforce the law on criminal feds. But if enforcing the law on law breakers is not something you are interested in, being a police officer is...odd. But yes, we can't pretend my suggestion is without danger. And we can't really pretend our law enforcement is actually law enforcement if they selectively avoid enforcing certain laws on certain people.

It is not easy to face down armed feds and enforce the law. I wish it were and I wish there were a better way than asking the most highly trained and equipped police I know of, SWAT, to do it. It is dangerous. But if SWAT doesn't, average civilians will eventually have no choice but to do it, poorly, themselves. I pointed out before: John Locke seems to agree with me that if there is no earthly authority to appeal to for redress, you are in a de facto state of war.

And local police have a real opportunity here. Local police can show who they serve and who they protect. They can do more for community relations with a few bold acts on this than years of outreach ever can. I have seen groups watching for ice, in an effort to protect their neighbors, go ahead and vocally disavow any efforts local police are making because police are not fully trusted by the people. What an opportunity for local forces to solidify their loyalty to the local populace they serve, and the law, by stopping the violence federal forces inflict.

Or do we want a future of local distrust? Do we want more dangerous streets and the people always seeing the police in their neighborhoods as a malevolent presence? Do we want the American people to believe that given a chance, cops will only hurt and kill? Do we tell Americans to never assist police? Every police chief, every sergeant and watch commander, every detective and beat cop must chose the answer they want for the future, the country's future and their personal future.

The police will always be outnumbered by the people they patrol. Police are more likely to make it home safely at the end of the shift if almost all the people believe those police are a force for good and those people want to help those police do their jobs well.

And no, “but you don’t understand, the people are way past ever working with us, some are lawless too much and they are animals,” doesn't cut it. With that argument you’re a prison guard, not a police officer, you're an occupying martial force, not a police force. And a bad one too: if you are already dehumanizing people, remember there are too many studies to cite (PDF) just one that confirms dehumanization is a step needed to allow the worst atrocities of the world.

Is policing in a free society difficult? Yes. Stunningly difficult. It is worth doing anyway? Yes, because otherwise you basically need to centralize the crime and rights violations within the law enforcement, secret police and federal forces in an effort to avoid those difficulties. You need to make the society un-free in order to avoid the challenges of policing a free society.

And then you won’t have successfully policed that society, you will have simply ignored the premise of the question. Abandonment of Justice would mean you no longer have to solve the persistent and evolving problem of how to administer Justice fairly. You, the police force, would become injustice, and therefore you'd avoid the thorny and tough work of bringing Justice into the world and helping that Justice thrive.

We arrive at the question protestors often pose: who and what do you serve? I implore the police forces, the prosecutors, the mayors, county commissioners, councilmen and other local leaders to strike the bargain of pursuing Justice with haste now, no matter how painful and dangerous it is to do so. This can avoid forcing our future selves to make far worse bargains. Those future bargains will bring far more destruction and loss of life later.

And on that cheery note, I’m off to find some small way in my own life to try to make things better for those I care about today. I suppose that kind of is what this whole piece has been about all along.

David August is an award-winning actor, acting coach, writer, director, and producer. He plays a role in the movie Dependent’s Day, and after its theatrical run, it’s now out on Amazon (affiliate link). He has appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live on ABC, on the TV show Ghost Town, and many others. His artwork has been used and featured by multiple writers, filmmakers, theatre practitioners, and others to express visually. Off-screen, he has worked at ad agencies, start-ups, production companies, and major studios, helping them tell stories their customers and clients adore. He has guest lectured at USC’s Marshall School of Business about the Internet.