How to explain the threat of deploying the military on American soil
Why sending soldiers against the president’s enemies is so dangerous
Last week, an interviewer asked former President Donald Trump whether he thought there would be chaos or even violence on Election Day. He said:
“The bigger problem is the enemy from within… we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics… and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by the National Guard, or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”
Later in the interview he gave a single example of an “enemy from within,” — a “lunatic,” “more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries” — Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, who served as the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment.
This is just one of many instances in which Trump has suggested deploying the National Guard, and even the regular military, for political ends. Trump has said that he would use the military to enforce immigration laws, to “stop riots” by protestors, and to police major cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, which he has called “crime dens.”
He has also said that he would target military interventions toward “Democrat-run states” and “Democratic-run cities.”
This is scary stuff, not only because it threatens to undermine our collective trust in the impartiality of the U.S. military, but also because using the military to pursue political opponents is a danger to American democracy.
Communicating the consequences of domestic deployments
We live in a divided country. Not everyone believes that Donald Trump is an authoritarian threat. Some people are probably at least open to the idea that the military could help fight crime and enforce immigration laws and crack down on unruly protestors.
Of course, that doesn’t make it acceptable. We know that, when he was president, Trump deployed both National Guard troops and federal law enforcement to respond to largely peaceful demonstrations, and that they used aggressive tactics in doing so. We also know that domestic use of the military “was one of [then-President Trump]’s fixations,” according to former Attorney General Bill Barr; he likely would have done it much more often but for the opposition of Barr himself and both of his longest serving secretaries of defense, who in Barr’s telling “batted down” the military option, at times “almost on a weekly basis.”
That kind of internal opposition is unlikely if Trump becomes president again.
Furthermore, domestic deployment of the military is a well-known tactic among authoritarian leaders; throughout history, autocrats have used military force to sow division, suppress and intimidate political opposition, and in extreme circumstances, to interfere with elections and forcibly change control of government. These actions all correspond with key tactics in the authoritarian playbook: quashing dissent, aggrandizing executive power, and corrupting elections.
However, even beyond these fundamental concerns about democracy, there are many other important reasons to be apprehensive about domestic uses of the military.
Excessive domestic use of the military can negatively impact our national security, our personal freedoms, and our military itself. All of these factors are essential to understanding why it’s not a good idea for any president, of any party, to be too quick to send the military into American communities.
The military is not the police
Perhaps the most important thing to recognize is that the military already has a job… and it’s not policing cities or enforcing immigration law.
The principal job of the U.S. military is to keep America safe from external threats. First and foremost, every member of the armed forces is trained and equipped for combat overseas — a job that only the military can do.
For every member of the armed forces policing the streets of an American city, that’s one less person available to deter our overseas adversaries or to respond to real emergencies.
And even if the military had unlimited resources (it doesn’t), it is not in the business of preparing soldiers to do a hodgepodge of domestic jobs. Deploying soldiers to function in tense situations without adequate training or clear objectives is not only a disservice to the members of our armed forces, it can be genuinely dangerous.
To take just one example, consider an incident that took place in the days after the 1992 Los Angeles riots when seven Marines were assisting two police officers with a domestic violence call:
“… as the police officers prepared to enter [a] home, someone inside fired a shotgun through the door. One of the officers shouted to the Marines, “Cover me” — a request, in law enforcement parlance, that they raise their weapons and be ready to fire if necessary. But the Marines, in accordance with their own training, took it as a request for suppressing fire. They riddled the home with more than 200 bullets. Miraculously, no one was killed.”
This example concerns a simple misunderstanding between military and police terminology. But many other police functions require specialized knowledge, like how to gather evidence, make arrests, and use force (as permitted) — without violating Americans’ constitutional rights. If we put our military in the middle of a civilian conflict, without appropriate preparation, there’s a danger of an escalation in which everyone loses.
It is for these reasons that we generally leave policing to the police. And — for the same reason — patrolling the border to the Border Patrol, enforcing immigration laws to immigration officials, and so on.
When domestic support from the military is helpful and appropriate
To be clear: There are some situations in which the military provides essential additional capacity to other domestic authorities, while steering clear of most of the above concerns.
For example, over the last few weeks, National Guard members have been an important part of the response to Hurricanes Milton and Helene. When we experience genuine domestic emergencies — short-term problems like natural disasters or civil unrest that overwhelm the capacity of police and local authorities — we are fortunate that state and local leaders can call on the additional capacity of the National Guard. They almost always serve in a supporting role, relying on the knowledge and expertise of local first responders.
So there are domestic uses of the military that are reasonable and appropriate. Mainly, they involve providing support to local authorities, in situations where that support is essential to protect lives and property — without escalating internal political conflicts or taking on functions that they are not well-suited to perform.
(For a much more detailed and sophisticated take on when domestic deployments are appropriate, take a look at this Statement of Principles on Domestic Deployment of the National Guard, published by a group of former National Guard leaders.)
But here’s the thing to keep in mind: the domestic uses of the military that Trump has proposed are, on the whole, not close calls. They’re pretty extreme.
Never in modern American history, for example, have we sent the military into major cities with an open-ended mission to fight crime — let alone against the wishes of local authorities. Never before have we used the military for mass deportations of migrants. And never has the threat to use the military domestically been cast in such partisan terms.
These aren’t missions for which the Guard and regular armed forces are adequately prepared, they detract from overall readiness, and, above all, they pose serious risks for the public’s trust in the military and the civilians elected to lead it.
There are limits on domestic use of the military
Importantly, many of the types of novel domestic deployments that have been suggested run into legal and practical limitations. While the president’s powers as commander in chief are extensive, they’re not unlimited.
Protect Democracy recently published a seven-part series, in partnership with Lawfare, that goes in-depth on these limits, in addition to detailing some of the dangers.
One of the key takeaways is that there are some genuine limits in place. The president’s authority — granted in part by the Insurrection Act, a sorely outdated statute that Congress ought to revisit — is relatively broad. But lawyers at the Department of Justice have long argued that that authority should be understood as a “last resort,” requiring in some cases that “state and local law enforcement ha[s] completely broken down.” Similarly, other oft-cited presidential authorities actually do not give the president a “blank check” and are limited by the territorial sovereignty of states. Even deployments that comply with the letter of the law may be at odds with the norms, regulations and capacities of the military itself.
There are also congressionally-imposed limits on the funding available for these deployments, which, even if they can be overcome, force the president to make difficult tradeoffs between national security and domestic missions.
And finally, there’s the potential harm to the military itself.
Public opinion is a powerful force in American life. If the military is mired in domestic conflict or political controversy, and fails to exercise adequate restraint, that’s a threat to public trust in the military. That loss could not only exacerbate the challenges of recruitment and retention, but also make the military less effective in responding to genuine emergencies.
Concerns about domestic use of the military go to the core of our identity as Americans. They were among the chief concerns of our nation’s founders, and among the central ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
We may be a divided country, and on many issues we may not be on the same page.
But perhaps one thing we can all get behind is that our military should continue to stand outside of politics and to focus on its primary mission. It’s up to our soldiers in uniform to protect us from outside threats, and we’re grateful to them for doing so. But within our borders, it’s up to us to resolve our own domestic conflicts, and to make wise and limited use of military resources.
Alex, thanks for explaining what should not need to be explained, if people were better informed.
Folks, let’s roll up our sleeves! ACTION STEPS! It’s dangerous to be over- confident that Kamala will win. In 2016 we were confident Hillary would win, but because 40 million registered Democrats did not vote, Trump won.
Pls join me in reaching out to moderate and low-propensity voters.
We need millions of low-propensity Democrats (a polite term for not motivated to vote), Independents, and undecideds to vote for Kamala. There are also some Republicans who are disgusted with Trump but they don’t want to “become a Democrat” – we need to inform them that voting Blue is in their best interests. WE CANNOT WIN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WITHOUT MILLIONS OF THEIR VOTES.
Two wonderful organizations - Galvanize Action - https://www.galvanizeaction.org/ - and One For All - https://oneforallcommittee.org/ -- are expert in crafting campaign messages to motivate people to vote Blue. They reach out to moderate women who admire Kamala but are married to Trumpers – giving them a nudge to follow their own common sense and vote for Kamala. Their messages are tried and true - created by veteran campaign experts, social psychologists, and data scientists - and are constantly tested and refined.
Another action step – Pls. support the work of kick-a*s investigative reporter, Justin Glawe. Only $5 a month gives you a subscription to his mighty Substack: “American Doom” - https://www.american-doom.com/p/how-georgia-election-officials-will - Justin does deep investigations into the shenanigans of the Georgia board of elections and has uncovered a lot of malfeasance. GA Republicans are doing everything they can to depress Democratic turnout, even submitting fake Death Certificates to have registered voters removed from the rolls. Much of this is only known due to Justin Glawe’s work. He writes for The Guardian and Rolling Stone; but he’s a freelance writer. Which means, in addition to no regular paycheck, he has to pay for all the FOIA (Freedom of Information) requests on his own. It also means if he’s sued, there’s no publication to cover his legal defense. Please join me in supporting him!
IF, and I think it's a big IF, tRump wins and tries to deploy the military against any American I think there are military leaders who would defy such an order......even if it comes from the president.
I think we have people in the military who understand that their job it to protect this country from outside enemies not against our own people.