The Long Game of Law and Order in New Orleans
President Trump has turned his eye to New Orleans as the next major city to possibly receive federal reinforcement for ongoing crime. The President’s urgency highlights the persistence of violent crime in America’s larger cities, despite falling rates. He and many others are rightfully frustrated with the status quo, but the proposed intervention raises questions. Is military policing a sustainable solution? Which responsibilities fall to state and local officials in matters of public safety?
Typically, the national guard is deployed for state-level emergencies, like natural disasters or civil unrest, as well as homeland defense missions and other more active-duty style work. A valuable element of the United States’ security apparatus, the national guard operates under specific jurisdictions and circumstances in order to avoid federal overstep or interference with state and local authorities. In addition to precedent, the Posse Comitatus Act, passed by Congress in 1878, places boundaries on the use of the military to enforce domestic law and limits the use of the national guard and other federal agents.
The President touted the success of military-style policing in D.C. when considering New Orleans. However, sending federal agents and the national guard to a city has different implications than deploying them in the federal District of Columbia. Separating military from civilian governance becomes increasingly difficult in the former scenario.
Deploying the national guard also comes with a hefty price tag. Though under different circumstances than D.C., the National Guard was also deployed to Los Angeles. The Governor’s Office in California reported that the federal presence cost taxpayers nearly $120 million. State officials, in the interest of their tax paying constituents, should carefully weigh these costs before encouraging what has typically been a last resort.
The response to President Trump’s proposition from Louisiana officials has been mixed. Those in favor of federal presence point to previous successful collaborations between national and local forces as well as the ongoing crime issues in a city long plagued by violence. Those against a federal presence have pointed to the success of state-led initiatives, like Troop Nola, and the “plummeting” crime rates in New Orleans. The Times Picayune|Advocate put these drops in perspective: “Relative to this point in 2022, when New Orleans' violent crime wave peaked, carjackings in the city are down 81%, robberies are down 59%, auto thefts are down 34%, shooting incidents are down 63%, vehicle burglaries are down 70% and homicides are down 64%, according to data tracked by Jeff Asher, a New Orleans-based crime analyst.”
Both parties have a point—New Orleans has a crime problem, but data-driven strategies on the state and local level have shown promise and will continue to achieve positive outcomes if given a sustained commitment and the proper resources. While military style policing may offer a temporary respite from some crime, the city deserves a long term solution. Federal intervention that distracts resources or policy-crafting away from evidence-based reforms is opposed to the President’s stated goal and not sustainable. Furthermore, the presence of the national guard and federal agents for a prolonged period of time could erode trust in the institutions Louisiana so desperately needs to restore confidence in order to implement law and order.
President Trump’s proposition should be a wakeup call. Public safety is a top priority for Louisiana’s citizens, and should be for its policymakers and local leaders as well. The time is now to strategically allocate resources and law enforcement to concentrated areas of need, leverage proven crime reduction strategies, and collect, share, and use data to achieve lasting positive outcomes. Beyond evidence-backed crime prevention, addressing the sentencing structure and felony classification system, as well as implementing uniform reentry programs will go a long way to ensure that the most dangerous criminals stay behind bars in jails that are not overcrowded and in disarray. Moreover, these reforms have the inverse fiscal effect of what happened in Los Angeles. When recidivism, court clog, and ineffective strategies due to missing data are reduced, taxpayer dollars are saved.
Law and order in New Orleans and other cities plagued by high crime hinges not on the temporary presence of federal troops, but on the sustained impacts of smart policies that prevent crime, allow for swift justice, and promote pathways to reentry when possible. This approach is not a quick fix, but a lasting one that avoids the legal and fiscal pitfalls of federal enforcement of local law.
