Use of Force: From Protest Policing to Collective Defence in 2025
Understanding the Significance of Force in Modern Security
The concept of ‘force’ has emerged as a critical issue in global discourse during 2025, spanning from controversial law enforcement tactics during civil protests to international military defence commitments. These developments reflect fundamental questions about when, how, and under what circumstances force should be deployed—whether by police officers on city streets or by military alliances defending territorial integrity.
Controversial Use of Force Against Protesters
In several cities, federal agents deployed by the president have detained, chased, shoved, sprayed or shot with projectiles people protesting peacefully. These incidents, particularly during immigration-related protests in the United States, have sparked intense debate about whether law enforcement has overstepped legal boundaries. Department of Homeland Security policies authorise force ‘only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist,’ yet a review of hundreds of videos shows repeated instances that don’t appear to meet that standard.
The concerns extend beyond American borders. In Nepal, widespread failings by law enforcement agencies in policing September’s youth-led ‘Gen Z’ protests resulted in unlawful killings, unnecessary and excessive use of force, and severe injuries, with security forces using mounting and ultimately lethal force—including live ammunition—against largely peaceful protesters, leaving at least 19 people killed and more than 300 injured.
NATO’s Collective Defence Commitments
Meanwhile, in the realm of international security, NATO has strengthened its commitment to collective defence. More than three-fourths of Americans would support using force to support NATO’s collective defence, according to the Ronald Reagan Institute’s latest annual National Defense Survey. This public support comes as at the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Allies committed to investing 5% of GDP annually on defence by 2035, including at least 3.5% on core defence requirements.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members, and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its assistance, which may or may not involve the use of armed force.
Accountability and Future Implications
The contrasting uses of force—domestic law enforcement versus international defence—raise fundamental questions about accountability and proportionality. Human rights organisations have called for thorough investigations into excessive force incidents, whilst NATO continues to refine its deterrence posture in response to evolving security threats. These developments will likely shape public discourse on legitimate force usage for years to come, affecting both civil liberties and international security frameworks.