At what moment will America's top military officers decide that they've reached their limit, that their allegiance to the constitution and the rule of law overrides unquestioning obedience to their positions and the sitting president?
Growing Armed Forces Deployment on US Territory
This question is far from academic. The president has been significantly increasing military operations within United States territory during his second term. Beginning last spring, he initiated expanding the military presence along sections of the southern border by establishing what are termed "security zones". Armed forces members are now permitted to inspect, interrogate and detain individuals in these zones, significantly obscuring the distinction between military authority and civilian law enforcement.
Controversial Military Assignments
By summer, federal authorities dispatched marines and state military units to LA contrary to the objections of the governor, and later to Washington DC. Similar assignments of military reserve forces, also disregarding the wishes of respective state governors, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon.
Legal Challenges
Needless to say, American legislation, under the federal statute, generally prohibits the use of military forces in police functions. A federal judge determined in September that the administration's military assignment in LA breached the act, but operations persist. And there's continuing pressure for the military to follow orders.
Personal Celebration
More than obeying commands. There's pressure for the military to venerate the commander-in-chief. Federal authorities converted a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which many considered unnecessary, into an individual 79th birthday celebration. The two occasions coincided on one date. Attendance at the parade was not only limited but was overshadowed by the estimated 5 million people who joined "No Kings" demonstrations across the country on that date.
Recent Developments
Recently, the president joined the recently renamed secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, in a suddenly called meeting of the nation's armed forces leadership on 30 September. At the gathering, the president told commanders: "We're facing invasion from within, similar to a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they're not identifiable." The justification was that "Democrats run the majority of urban areas that are in bad shape," even though all the cities referenced – the Bay Area, the Illinois city, New York, Los Angeles – have historically low rates of violent crime in generations. And then he stated: "We should use some of these urban areas as practice locations for our military."
Political Reshaping
The administration is working to transform the US military into a partisan force committed to maintaining administrative control, a development which is not only anathema to American values but should also concern every citizen. And they plan to make this reorganization into a spectacle. All statements the secretary stated at this highly publicized and very expensive meeting could have been distributed by written directive, and actually had been. But the official in particular needs image rehabilitation. He is better recognized for directing military operations than for leaking them. For this official, the very public lecture was a vainglorious effort at enhancing his own tarnished image.
Concerning Developments
However much more important, and considerably more alarming, was administration leadership's foreshadowing of even greater numbers of military personnel on American streets. Therefore, I return to the original concern: when will America's top military brass decide that enough is enough?
Leadership Shakeup
There's substantial basis to believe that senior officers of the military might already be worried about being dismissed by this president, whether for being not devoted enough to current leadership, not meeting demographic criteria, or insufficiently male, based on past actions from this administration. Shortly of assuming office, the administration dismissed the leader of military command, Air Force Gen CQ Brown, only the second African American to occupy this role. Adm Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to be appointed to chief of naval operations, the US Navy's highest rank, was also dismissed.
Legal Structure
The administration also removed military lawyers for the army, maritime forces and air force, and dismissed Gen Tim Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and digital operations, according to accounts at the request of political operative Laura Loomer, who claimed Haugh was not devoted enough to the president. There are numerous additional instances.
Historical Context
Although accurate that every administration does certain personnel changes upon assuming power, it's equally correct that the scale and mission to reorganize the military during the current term is without historical parallel. As analysts note: "No earlier presidency exercised its power in this dramatic fashion for concern that doing so would essentially consider the senior officer corps as similar to partisan political appointees whose career commitment is to transition with changes of administration, rather than professional officials whose work ethic is to perform duties regardless of changes in administrative control."
Rules of Engagement
The secretary stated that they will also now eliminate "unnecessary regulations of engagement". Those rules, however, define what is lawful and unlawful conduct by armed forces, a distinction made more difficult to discern as the administration reduces the legal wing of armed services. Obviously, there exists significant unlawful activity in American armed forces conduct from its inception until today. But if you are part of armed services, you have the right, if not the duty, to disobey illegal orders.
Current Operations
The administration is currently engaged in clearly unlawful acts being conducted by the US navy. Lethal strikes are being launched against boats in the Caribbean that American authorities asserts are drug smuggling vessels. No proof has been provided, and currently the administration is claiming America is in a military engagement with narcotics organizations and individuals who were murdered by American forces in attacks are "unlawful combatants".
Legal Analysis
This is absurd, of course, and recalls of the poorest judicial analysis developed during the early anti-terrorism era. Although individuals on those boats were participating in narcotics trafficking, participating in the sale of illegal drugs does not rise to the criteria of engaging in hostilities, as noted by authorities.
Conclusion
When a state intentionally kills a person beyond armed conflict and without due process, it's a form of homicide. It's already happening in the Caribbean Sea. Is that the direction we're headed down on the streets of American municipalities? The administration may have drawn up personal military strategies for his purposes, but it's the members of armed forces who will have to carry them out. With all our institutions currently on the line, including the military, we need enhanced defense against this vision of conflict.
