When you have lived most of your years within an institution, you may be able to see only what the institution has been, not what it must now become.

So, for example, even though elected and appointed federal officials take an oath to support and defend the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” a military experience might have been limited to the defense of the country against international threats — enemies foreign. If so, it is hard to imagine or perhaps even justify in your mind that it might now be necessary to defend against internal threats — enemies domestic.

Here’s the hard truth. Some advocate that limited use of the military ignores the Constitution and does not consign Americans to suffer violent disorder until local officials figure it out. The urgency of the situation demands that we oppose those who have now become domestic enemies.

The federal government exists, in part, as stated in the first sentence of the Constitution, “to … insure domestic Tranquility,” and it retains tools to act when local systems fail. That promise is not theoretical — it’s textual and enduring. Citing the use of that authority to enforce court orders against White supremacists or citing National Guard failures at Kent State University in 1970 in Ohio in no way disqualifies the exercise of this authority any more than did Abraham Lincoln’s deployment of 4,000 federal troops fresh from the battlefield at Gettysburg to suppress New York City draft riots.

If the contrary logic based on the failure of command at Kent State had any currency, then the failure of command leading to the 1968 My Lai Massacre would dictate that we do not use our military at all.

Two constitutional provisions are especially relevant. First, the Guarantee Clause (Article IV, Section 4) obligates the United States to protect states “against …domestic Violence” upon proper application — an explicit recognition that federal power may be necessary to restore order. Second, for the nation’s capital, Congress holds “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,” and the president directly commands the D.C. National Guard, authority long delegated through the Department of Defense.

These statements of federal authority are not abstractions; they are structural features of our constitutional design, and understanding them is crucial.

Nor is federal involvement categorically “militarized policing.” The Posse Comitatus Act limits the use of federal troops in civilian law enforcement. Still, Congress created exceptions, most notably the Insurrection Act, precisely for moments when ordinary mechanisms break down. Narrow, lawful federal support to protect federal functions, reinforce overwhelmed federal and state law enforcement agencies, or stabilize a spiraling situation is not only permissible. In Washington, it is a federal responsibility.

In cities plagued by rampant violent crime, there is no reason to “wait it out” because of a theory that only a faltering local force or a city hall should respond. Objections to federal help are typically nothing more than theoretical: process worries, slippery-slope fears, or rhetoric about “optics.” The reality in our largest cities has been failed governance, defunded and depleted policing, and prosecutorial choices that erode accountability. At the same time, residents endure murder, rape, armed robbery and violence that no American should have to tolerate.

What do the numbers say? The FBI reports that violent crime fell 4.5 percent in 2024, to 359.1 victims per 100,000. National figures mask enormous concentration: a tiny set of jurisdictions drives a disproportionate share of serious violence. Analyses show that the worst 2% of counties account for half of all murders; excluding the most violent cities would push national rates much lower. In short, our “national” rate is inflated by a handful of urban hot spots where local law enforcement systems have failed.

We are fortunate to have a president now willing to see this situation clearly and act lawfully within constitutional bounds — especially in Washington, where federal authority is at its zenith — to protect the innocent and restore peace. That is not overreach; it is keeping the Framers’ promise of domestic tranquility.

We can all agree that the safest, most resilient communities are built from the ground up. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is our largest cities being torn apart from the top down. We are fortunate that the federal government is willing and able to put a stop to that.(

(Bill O’Brien is a Republican National Committeeman representing New Hampshire and chairman of the Pine Tree Public Policy Institute, a conservative think tank.)