The Predictable Return of the 'Small Force' Myth
Tom Homan, the former acting director of ICE under Trump, recently dismissed concerns about a federal security presence in Minnesota, echoing familiar assurances that any deployment would be 'small' and containable. Such rhetoric is designed to assuage public fears and normalize state intervention, a tactic perfected over decades when federal agents enter localized situations. This 'small force'
narrative is a recurring theme in federal responses to domestic unrest, notably seen during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, where promises of limited National Guard involvement quickly expanded into a massive occupation. Similarly, during the Ferguson protests in 2014, initial deployments escalated rapidly, with local police forces receiving surplus military equipment through programs like the 1033
Program, totaling over $5.1 billion in transfers since 1990. The pattern is clear: what begins as 'small' frequently morphs into a significant, militarized state presence. What the mainstream press often omits is the consistent escalation that follows these 'small' deployments, turning local law enforcement into de facto occupying forces. This repeated pattern exposes a double standard: when
governments deploy forces abroad, it's called intervention; when at home, it's 'security.' The language is specifically chosen to deflect scrutiny and minimize the appearance of federal overreach, even as records show a consistent trajectory toward escalation and the suppression of civil liberties. Readers should remain skeptical of any official assurances regarding the scale or intent of federal