At what moment will America's top military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their duty to the constitution and the rule of law supersedes blind loyalty to their positions and the sitting president?
Expanding Armed Forces Deployment on American Soil
This question is far from academic. The administration has been significantly increasing armed forces activities within United States territory during his second term. Beginning last spring, he began increasing the armed forces deployment along portions of the southern border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now authorized to search, question and detain individuals in these areas, significantly obscuring the separation between martial law and civilian law enforcement.
Disputed Military Assignments
During the summer months, the administration sent marine corps and state military units to LA against the wishes of state leadership, and subsequently to the capital. Comparable assignments of national guard forces, likewise disregarding the preferences of local elected officials, are anticipated for Chicago and the Oregon city.
Constitutional Concerns
Obviously, US law, under the federal statute, typically forbids the use of armed services in police roles. A federal judge ruled in last fall that the president's troop deployment in LA breached this law, but operations persist. And the expectation remains for the military to follow orders.
Personal Celebration
More than following orders. There's pressure for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. The administration converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which some viewed as excessive, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions coincided on one date. Attendance at the event was not only limited but was overshadowed by approximately 5 million people who participated in "anti-authoritarian demonstrations across the country on that date.
Recent Developments
Most recently, the president joined the recently renamed secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in an abruptly summoned meeting of the nation's armed forces leadership on late September. At the gathering, administration leadership informed the leadership: "We're experiencing invasion from within, similar to a foreign enemy, but more difficult in numerous aspects because they don't wear uniforms." His evidence was that "Democrats run most of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though each metropolitan area referenced – the Bay Area, Chicago, NYC, LA – have some of their lowest levels of serious offenses in generations. Subsequently he declared: "We should use certain dangerous cities as practice locations for armed forces."
Political Reshaping
The administration is working to transform American armed forces into a political instrument committed to preserving executive power, a development which is not only contrary to our tradition but should also concern every citizen. And they intend to make this restructuring into a public display. All statements the official said at this highly publicized and very expensive gathering could have been distributed by memorandum, and in fact was. However the secretary in particular requires a rebrand. Currently better recognized for leading armed forces activities than for disclosing such information. For this official, the highly visible lecture was a self-aggrandizing attempt at enhancing his own damaged reputation.
Concerning Developments
But much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's suggestion of even greater numbers of troops on American streets. So, I return to my initial question: when will the nation's senior military leadership decide that limits have been reached?
Personnel Changes
There's every reason to believe that senior members of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by this president, either for being not devoted enough to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, based on past actions from this administration. Shortly of taking power, federal authorities removed the leader of the joint chiefs of staff, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second Black man to occupy this role. Admiral Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to navy leadership, naval forces' highest rank, was also removed.
Judicial Framework
The administration also eliminated military lawyers for the army, maritime forces and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the director of intelligence services and US Cyber Command, according to accounts at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who asserted Haugh was not devoted enough to the president. There are numerous additional instances.
Unprecedented Scale
While it's true that every administration does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's also true that the scale and objective to reorganize armed forces during the current term is without historical parallel. As experts note: "No earlier presidency exercised its power in such extreme manner for concern that doing so would effectively treat the senior officer corps as akin to partisan political appointees whose career commitment is to come and go with political shifts, rather than career public servants whose work ethic is to perform duties independent of changes in administrative control."
Operational Guidelines
Administration officials claimed that they will also now eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". These guidelines, though, determine what is legal and illegal conduct by armed forces, a line made harder to discern as federal leadership reduces the legal wing of armed services. Clearly, there has been significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from their establishment until the present. But if you are part of the military, you have the right, if not the obligation, to disobey illegal orders.
Current Operations
Federal leadership is presently involved in blatantly illegal operations being carried out by naval forces. Lethal strikes are being launched against boats in tropical waters that American authorities asserts are drug smuggling vessels. No evidence has been provided, and currently the administration is stating America is in a "non-international armed conflict" with narcotics organizations and the people who were murdered by the US in the strikes are "unlawful combatants".
Expert Opinion
This is ludicrous, of course, and recalls of the worst judicial analysis created during initial War on Terror era. Even if the people on those boats were involved in drug smuggling, participating in distribution of a controlled substance does not meet the criteria of military combat, as observed by authorities.
Conclusion
When a state intentionally kills a person beyond military engagement and lacking legal procedure, it's a form of murder. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the path we're headed down on the streets of American municipalities? Federal leadership may have created personal military strategies for his purposes, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to implement them. As all American systems currently on the line, including the military, we need a much stronger protection against this vision of war.
