Distinguishing Between Soldiers and Law Enforcement Officers

As the United States engages in a new war in the Middle East, it might seem incongruous to curate a commentary series on what soldiers deployed domestically and law enforcement officers back home wear and carry with them. But the active deployment of military personnel overseas—and the potentially life-and-death importance of their gear and what they wear—underscores the different functions that warfighters and law enforcement professionals serve. The distinctions between them are legal, they are operational, and they are cultural. And these distinctions should be visible. That is what this commentary series is about.

According to CNN reporting in 2020, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper and senior military officials were concerned at the time that the military-like appearance of federal law enforcement officers deployed domestically could make the public think that military personnel were policing the streets. It was a confusion the department did not want. While the concerns expressed at the time were referring to the deployment of federal law enforcement in Washington, D.C., in response to protest activity circa 2020, the increasingly militarized appearance and gear of law enforcement personnel throughout the United States is not a new or even recent phenomenon. It is a trend that is decades in the making.

Scholarship and analyses about the militarization of law enforcement have generally focused on the issue from the perspective of social justice and community impact. This series approaches the issue from different perspectives, representing military equities and law enforcement considerations. These perspectives counsel against a blurring of the visible lines between military and policing. They also acknowledge and value the legitimate safety considerations of law enforcement personnel at federal, state, and local levels.

Over the past year, there has been an increase in Department of Homeland Security federal law enforcement personnel drawn from immigration and border protection duties throughout selected cities—such as Minneapolis and Charlotte, among others—as well as the deployment of National Guard in places like Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Chicago. The legal framework for how these various federal government components appear is worth understanding so that legislative and policy approaches are grounded in the law and informed by legitimate policy considerations such as officer safety and public trust.

Over the next few weeks, this series will aim to do just that. At the outset, a contributing author analyzes federal legislative proposals that would provide new rules for law enforcement appearance and will consider state and local law enforcement equities and perspectives. The series will cover angles related to the availability and use of military uniforms and gear for law enforcement purposes, and the law and policy considerations governing those provisions. The series also includes a student contribution that summarily outlines the legal framework for state and local law enforcement powers, federal immigration powers, and limitations on military engagement in law enforcement.

The contributions to this series will offer analysis and recommendations for improving the current situation. To begin, here are two common-sense approaches to reducing the confusion in distinguishing law enforcement from military personnel:

First, law enforcement should ditch the camo. In domestic U.S. urban environments, there is no operational reason for law enforcement personnel to wear traditional military-style camo, a uniform designed for 19th- and 20th-century warfighting. Light or dark blue uniforms, and corresponding tactical gear when needed based on the nature of the enforcement activities, should be adopted across law enforcement. Immigration and border security personnel should wear a distinguishing different color. A forthcoming piece in this series will recommend additional reforms to Department of Defense policies for excess military property, known as the 1033 program, which has contributed to the proliferation of military uniforms on American streets.

Second, both federal and state governments should adopt legislation providing basic requirements for law enforcement identification, including a limit on masking and the addition of an identifier that provides accountability. An accompanying piece in this series assesses current relevant federal legislative proposals with the objective of preserving and prioritizing accountability and officer safety. One need not come at the expense of the other.

There is a lot this series will not cover that is relevant to how the United States got to the point of the frequent militarized law enforcement presence on American streets—for example, the proliferation of high-powered weapons of war available to the general public, or the excess equipment available from decades of prior U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. While acknowledging those circumstances, the purpose of this series is to offer informed perspectives and pragmatic recommendations to address the discrete issue of law enforcement’s visible appearance on duty, an issue that resides at the intersection of critical mission, officer safety, and public trust.

The public’s ability to distinguish between military and law enforcement personnel matters. These government actors have different missions. They also engage with citizens under different legal authorities. Current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has emphasized that the foundational purpose of the rebranded “Department of War” is to prepare for and execute military operations. In contrast, federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel have responsibilities that include investigations and enforcement activities, protecting rights, and providing for public safety. The American public should be able to distinguish between government actors engaging in these activities.

About the Author

Carrie F. Cordero is the Robert M. Gates senior fellow and director of the National Security Law Program at CNAS.

About the Series

Building on its prior work on issues at the intersection of federalism, national security, domestic deployment, and law enforcement activities, the CNAS National Security Law Program is publishing a commentary series that assesses the legal and policy considerations for improving the framework governing law enforcement use of military uniforms and gear. Read more about the series here.

The CNAS project on federalism and national security was initiated with support from the Democracy Innovation Fund, Defending Democracy Together Institute. Continued work on domestic deployment and related issues has been made possible by support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

About the Center for a New American Security

As a research and policy institution committed to the highest standards of organizational, intellectual, and personal integrity, CNAS maintains strict intellectual independence and sole editorial direction and control over its ideas, projects, publications, events, and other research activities. CNAS does not take institutional positions on policy issues, and the content of CNAS publications reflects the views of their authors alone. In keeping with its mission and values, CNAS does not engage in lobbying activity and complies fully with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. CNAS will not engage in any representational activities or advocacy on behalf of any entities or interests and, to the extent that the Center accepts funding from non-U.S. sources, its activities will be limited to bona fide scholastic, academic, and research-related activities, consistent with applicable federal law. The Center publicly acknowledges on its website annually all donors who contribute.