This piece on what “defunding the police” means is helpful in itself, and useful for background as well.

One thing it doesn’t say but I think merits saying: I believe there is an under-appreciated connection between an over-reliance on policing and the use of force in domestic situations, and an over-reliance on the military in foreign affairs. Both bespeak a terrific failure of political imagination. And a failure rooted, at least in part, in a racist belief in white supremacy, at home and abroad.

In a time when we ought to be inventing new institutional structures for foreign affairs—much as the Kennedy administration is responsible for the Peace Corps and USAID—we return to a remilitarized mindset. If you ask thoughtful military leaders, they will immediately remind you that their expertise is quite focused, and cannot be relied upon for everything.

Remember that the idea of "police" is not merely etymologically related to "policy" and "politics."  They all implicate one another, in an overall understanding of what the state is, what government is for, and what kind of creatures we are who establish it and use it and live under it.  

We need to escape a narrowly reductionist theory of politics, which says the state is nothing but, or quickly reducible to, the use of force.  (Foucault's work on "governmentality" could be something to start from here, though I'd say it helps to know Weber and other thinkers at least as much.)  We need a broader palette of institutions to interact with the challenges we face, at home and abroad. And the struggles are not accidentally related, I think.   

Anyway, the point of this post was really to direct you to that Washington Post piece, which is helpful on what "defunding the police" might mean.