By Paul Goldenberg and Brigadier General (Ret.) Tom Cosentino
The partnership between law enforcement and the U.S. military has always existed within a delicate, legally defined boundary. While both institutions serve courageously to protect the nation, their missions, authorities and public expectations are fundamentally different. In a democracy, it is essential that civilian law enforcement remain distinct and separate from military force — a principle protected by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
As modern threats evolve and the lines between public safety, homeland defense and civil unrest blur, police leaders are increasingly operating in environments where military support, while sometimes necessary, raises new legal, ethical and operational concerns.
What is now urgently needed is a clear, standardized national framework to guide coordination between the military and civilian law enforcement.
Understanding the legal boundary
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits federal military forces — such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Space Force — from participating directly in civilian law enforcement activities, including arrests, searches, or seizures. This law was enacted following the Civil War to limit military influence in domestic affairs.
Key exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act:
- The Insurrection Act permits the President to deploy federal troops in times of civil unrest or rebellion.
- Congressional authorizations have enabled support for counter-narcotics and homeland security missions.
- Emergency support provisions allow assistance during major disasters or WMD threats.
- National Guard units, under state control, can support law enforcement unless federalized.
- The Coast Guard, with inherent law enforcement authority, is exempt from the Act.
Permitted activities:
- The military may provide logistics, technical support, intelligence and training as long as they do not engage in enforcement roles.
Why this matters to police leaders
In recent years, police departments across the country have partnered more frequently with military forces. These interactions have included:
- Joint task forces
- National Guard deployments during civil unrest
- Mutual aid during natural disasters
For example, West Virginia’s National Guard has long collaborated with law enforcement on counter-drug operations and fusion center intelligence sharing.
But collaboration raises critical questions:
- Who is in command during a joint operation?
- What use-of-force standards apply?
- How do we maintain accountability to civilian leadership?
- What are the legal boundaries — and liabilities — for each agency?
These are not questions to be answered mid-crisis. They demand clear protocols and guidance well before the next emergency occurs.
The case for a national framework
There is no single, comprehensive national policy governing military-police cooperation in domestic operations. Existing laws are fragmented, inconsistently applied and sometimes unclear.
A national framework should provide:
- Clearly defined roles and responsibilities
- Standardized training and communications protocols
- Legal guidance on use of force, oversight and chain of command
- Accountability mechanisms to maintain public trust
- Crisis playbooks for pre-planned and rapid-response coordination
Such a framework would protect officers and commanders from legal uncertainty, enhance public confidence and ensure all actions are grounded in constitutional principles.
Defending democracy amid rising threats
Law enforcement agencies must be prepared for an expanding and increasingly complex threat environment. From cyberattacks and terrorism to civil unrest and extreme weather events, the range of threats continues to grow.
In recent years, the phrase “threat to democracy” has become politically charged. But for police officers and sheriffs, defending democracy is not theoretical — it is a daily reality. They are not only protectors of public safety; they are guardians of civil order and constitutional values.
At a time when law enforcement itself faces disinformation, political pressure and targeted violence, we must protect the profession from operational ambiguity and ensure our actions uphold the values we defend.
Components of a national framework
To ensure lawful, effective and accountable collaboration, a national framework must establish clear guidelines for when and how military support can be integrated into domestic law enforcement operations. This blueprint for protecting democracy and public safety should address:
1. Clear roles and responsibilities
- Define how and when military forces can support civilian agencies
- Clarify who retains command in joint operations
2. Unified command and communication
- Establish consistent command structures
- Implement interoperable communication platforms
3. Use-of-force and engagement guidelines
- Ensure alignment between military support and local law enforcement standards
- Prohibit unauthorized enforcement roles by military personnel
4. Training and preparedness
- Conduct joint exercises for civil unrest and homeland defense
- Educate leaders on relevant laws such as the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts
5. Legal and ethical boundaries
- Provide clear legal briefings for all joint deployments
- Safeguard civil liberties and enforce transparency protocols
6. Transparency and public accountability
- Require after-action reports
- Establish oversight systems to evaluate conduct and outcomes
7. Crisis playbooks and pre-planning
- Develop operational templates for National Guard or military support
- Identify clear activation thresholds for joint deployments
It must be acknowledged that a national framework assumes alignment and cooperation between federal and state or local authorities — an assumption that, as current circumstances show, cannot be taken for granted. As federal, state and local stakeholders come together to develop a framework for military and police cooperation in domestic security operations, it is hoped that the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, will clarify the legal boundaries for federal involvement. However, these legal findings alone will not replace the need for clear operational processes and procedures outlined in a national framework.
Conclusion
This is not about militarizing the police. It is about protecting the integrity, professionalism and legal standing of our law enforcement agencies in times of crisis.
We need a national framework — not just to improve coordination, but to uphold our constitutional responsibilities. The legitimacy of policing in a democracy depends on it.
About the authors
Paul Goldenberg spent nearly three decades in law enforcement; from walking a beat in the urban streets of Irvington, New Jersey to serving 10 years as a senior advisor to the Secretary of Homeland Security. For the past two decades, he has worked globally with police agencies across Europe, Scandinavia, the UK and in the Middle East in his capacity as Chief Advisor of Police and International Policing with the Rutgers University Miller Center on Policing and Community Resilience. Prior to that, he worked with the OSCE — the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the largest regional government security org in the world — to develop their first international police training program in domestic terrorism, hate crime and human rights. He is also a Distinguished Visiting Fellow for the University of Ottawa PDI for Transnational Security, a senior officer with the Global Consortium of Law Enforcement Training Executives, CEO of Cardinal Point Strategies, former senior member of the NJ Attorney’s General Office, member of the NSA Border Council, Chair of the LEBOA for Draganfly.
Following his 31-year Army career, Brigadier General (Ret.) Tom Cosentino now serves as Governance Risk Global (GRG), Chief Executive Officer, leading GRG to develop best-in-class approaches to risk assessment, mitigation, planning, brand protection and continuity of operations. He helps in overseeing the delivery of leadership training and education at the C-Suite and Board of Directors level.
Prior to military retirement, Tom’s last military assignment was as the 28th Commandant of the National War College — the premier institution for the education of strategic leaders for the United States Military, other departments of the United States Government and 29 allied nations. Before assuming command of the National War College, Tom served as the Joint Staff Deputy Director for Political and Military Affairs, with a focus on the Middle East, providing policy and military advice to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense. He also served previously as the Deputy Commanding General for Regional Support, NATO Training Mission Afghanistan, leading the regional training of army and police units across Afghanistan, and as the Chief of Strategy, Plans, and Assessments for the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq.
Tom also serves as Chair of the Advisory Boards for American Battery Factory and of NextGenID, and as a senior advisor to Cerberus Capital Management, Team Housing Solutions, Zeva Holdings and the Middle East Media Research Institute. Tom earned a B.S. in political science at the University of the State of New York and holds master’s degrees in international relations from Georgetown University and national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College.