On the campaign trail, former President Donald Trump has declared there are serious threats to the United States. First, he said, there is “the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous,” as he told Fox News in an Oct 13 interview.
He went on to say that “the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think. And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military.”
When asked on CNN about Trump’s remarks about using the military on U.S. soil, Mark Esper, one of five people who led the Defense Department during Trump’s presidency, said Americans “should take those words seriously,” most especially because Trump had already tried to do so when he was president.
As professors of military ethics, we worry that Trump’s actions while president, and his comments about his plans for a potential second term, may put the military in a tough position. The July 1 Supreme Court ruling giving the president immunity for official acts – potentially including as commander in chief of the military – would make that tough position even more difficult.
Response to demonstrations
In the summer of 2020, protests, including some violent ones, arose in cities around the U.S. in the wake of the May 25 murder of George Floyd. Then-President Trump announced he was considering sending the U.S. military into the streets of several American cities. He had already deployed some National Guard members in Washington in an effort to control the demonstrations there.
At the time, the two of us considered the possibility of dissent within the military hierarchy, saying that resistance would be most effective “if it were to come from those at the top.”
Indeed, many of the highest-ranking generals, admirals and Cabinet-level advisers resisted Trump’s requests to send the military to “beat the f— out” of protesters and “crack their skulls” – or even “just shoot them.”
Though Trump reportedly wanted to bring as many as 10,000 soldiers to Washington, fewer troops were deployed in the nation’s capital. No federal military personnel were used against public demonstrations in the U.S. that summer. Some National Guard troops were called up by state governors, not federal orders.
The reasons for civilian control
For his potential second term, Trump says he wants to hire cabinet and other government officials who will follow his orders without question, rather than people who might try to prevent his worst inclinations from being enacted.
Questions about dissent and disobedience will therefore likely fall on those at more junior levels of military service in a second Trump administration than they did in the first.
The U.S. military has long been dedicated to the principle of civilian control. To minimize the chance of the kind of military occupation they suffered during the Revolutionary War, the country’s founders wrote the Constitution requiring that the president, an elected civilian, would be the commander in chief of the military. In the wake of World War II, Congress went even further, restructuring the military and requiring that the secretary of defense be a civilian as well.
For that reason, in a time of increasing political polarization, military educational institutions are focusing even more explicitly on the oath military members take to the Constitution, rather than to a person or an office.
As the Joint Chiefs of Staff reminded the military after the Jan 6, 2021, insurrection, and just before the inauguration of Joe Biden as president, military personnel serve the nation’s interests, not those of a politician or a political party.
Nonpartisanship could become partisan
When faced with a potential order to deploy the U.S. military within the nation’s borders, however, service members may find themselves in a situation where upholding the military’s tradition of staying out of politics could itself appear partisan.
Military members have a duty to obey orders from superior officers. But as military ethicists, we recognize that the content of an order is not the only factor that determines whether it is a moral one.
The political motivation for an order may be equally important. That’s because the military’s obligation to stay out of politics is deeply intertwined with the mutual obligation of civilian officials not to use the military for partisan reasons.
If an elected official were to attempt to use the military for obviously partisan ends, the decisions of military personnel to either follow the order or resist it would open them up to accusations of partisanship – even if their actions were attempts to protect the military’s strict partisan neutrality.
At the nation’s founding, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson worried about a military that would be loyal to a particular leader rather than to a form of government. James Madison was concerned that soldiers might be used by those in power as instruments of oppression against the citizenry.
Trump has said the National Guard or the military could “easily handle” political protesters. He has recommended one “really rough, nasty” hour of police violence to curb criminal activity. He has expressed a desire for military officers to be obedient to him and not the Constitution.
It’s not clear that military members could follow those kinds of orders and remain nonpartisan. By refusing to follow orders about military deployment to U.S. cities for political ends, members of the armed forces could actually be respecting, rather than undermining, the principle of civilian control. After all, the framers always intended it to be the people’s military – not the president’s.
Risks for military members
There is a long line of military heroes who had the moral courage not to follow immoral orders. In fact, it was a junior officer who first exposed the widespread use of torture in the global war on terror.
That particular example may be useful to consider in the weeks and months ahead, given the significant effort at the time to argue that some of those immoral orders could nonetheless be legal.
Recently, some of Trump’s former military advisers have raised concerns about the the potential use of U.S. troops in American cities. But several of his civilian advisers have already recommended being less reticent about finding legal means to deploy the military within the country. And a July 1 Supreme Court ruling gave the president criminal immunity for official acts – which almost certainly include giving orders to the military.
Regardless of who wins the 2024 presidential election, there will likely be significant protests over policy – perhaps even over the results themselves. If the military is ever called in because of those actions, military members would have to consider whether they could ethically follow the orders to do so. To be ready to answer these important questions, they have to consider them now.
We often ask our students to imagine themselves in numerous different ethical situations, both real and hypothetical. In the present circumstance, we believe one set of ethical questions could quickly become very concrete for those serving:
“Would you obey an order from a president – a particular president giving an order for a particular reason – to deploy to a U.S. city? What might it mean for the nation if you did? And what might it mean for American democracy if, in some circumstances, you were brave enough not to?”
Many Americans claim to venerate military men and women, thanking them for their service and standing to celebrate them at sporting events. They may need much more support than that from the American people, and soon.
The academic views expressed in this article are the views of the authors alone and should not be read as endorsing any candidate for office. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Naval Academy, the Naval Postgraduate School, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense or any other entity within the U.S. government; the authors are not authorized to provide any official position of these entities.
Marcus Hedahl is Professor of Philosophy, United States Naval Academy. Bradley Jay Strawser is Professor of Philosophy, Naval Postgraduate School.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
© The Conversation
24 Comments
Peter Neil
the posse comitatis act was revised in 2006 and limitations are strict.
invoking the insurrection act involves violence or looting before it can be invoked.
trump simply telling the military to act as law enforcement with the u.s. wouldn’t fly because it would be an unlawful order. the military does not obey unlawful orders.
anyone who has every been in the military knows this.
Desert Tortoise
While true on paper and mostly in practice, SCOTUS giving Presidents immunity for "official acts" changes the dynamic greatly. He could fire any military leader or order the courts martial of any officer or enlisted member who refused and there would be no repercussion. If a Federal or Military Judge denied the President, he could fire them too. He could just keep firing people until he got compliance.
Yes there are laws governing the dismissal of officers or enlisted people but a President with immunity and who relishes that immunity would not be bound by those laws. Were any such cases to make their way to SCOTUS for review I sincerely doubt they would rule against Jupiter. They would probably say it is a political problem for Congress to solve through impeachment, beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. You can guess how far that would go. And even if SCOTUS ruled against Jupiter there is a pretty good chance he would just ignore them. What could they do?
The real problem is that officers who did obey a legal order could be tried in a Courts Marital, risking their careers and their future unless pardoned by Jupiter.
One could almost see the string of Presidential appointees violating a raft of Federal laws on orders of their lord Jupiter, and as soon as they are charged (if they are even charged since you can assume the AG will be licking Jupiter's boots) that Jupiter would immediately grant pardons. The courts would be neutered and there would be nothing to stop him. There is no possibility of a 2/3 majority in the US Senate to convict no matter what he does.
Desert Tortoise
I meant to say:The real problem is that officers who did obey an illegal order could be tried in a Courts Marital, risking their careers and their future unless pardoned by Jupiter.
Bob Fosse
“He has expressed a desire for military officers to be obedient to him and not the Constitution.”
maga conveniently overlook this little tidbit.
Moonraker
This alone should bar him from office since his oath is to uphold the constitution, yet he is prepared to gut it with the backing of ignorant people who otherwise laud the constitution. This is how the USA goes down, folks. Let's hope it goes down quietly. But the parallels with 1934 are chilling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Oath
TaiwanIsNotChina
Start with whether the order violates international law. That ought to give you a way out from fulfilling 90% of Dump's shenanigans.
TaiwanIsNotChina
My understanding is the Wehrmacht didn't take kindly to idiots and cowards like Hitler even back then. Hopefully the same will be true in the US in 2025.
TaiwanIsNotChina
That goes both ways, though: it requires a 2/3rds majority to remove a federal judge and a federal judge can issue orders against Jupiter in response to filings by a whole host of different parties.
Zaphod
Bob Fosse
A „little tidbit“ which is untrue.
As is the claim in the article that "Trump has said the National Guard or the military could “easily handle” political protesters." He was referring to violent mobs and not "political protesters".
While the writer claims that "and should not be read as endorsing any candidate for office", they clearly are. He is just adding to the chorus of propaganda against one candidate.
Moonraker
But, nonetheless, they went along. Perhaps you create a parallel organisation out of militias (brown shirts and SS) and either bully military figures into compliance, fire them or find sympathisers (of which there may be quite a lot in the US military; an ugly fact this article fails to develop.).
TaiwanIsNotChina
So then why did he single out Schiff, Pelosi, and 60 Minutes as enemies from within. Were they violent?
Bob Fosse
Prove it.
Who do you believe, the military commanders who served under 45 Or stephen cheung?
Bob Fosse
I forgot MAGA logic is we shouldn’t take 45 literally at what he literally says. Or does.
Only what he says he’ll do. Sometimes. Unless we don’t like it, then it’s trolling or locker room banter.
Peter Neil
yes, the overarching presidential immunity ruling by the supreme court is obscene. another view is that a military member is subject to u.s. code within domestic territory and not just the ucmj.
it’s a horrible twist by the court.
bass4funk
Like with Flynn or Petraeus?
When we see how this administration has weaponized the DOJ and in the past the IRS there are serious deep concerns as to how a Harris administration (God forbid) would look like, Biden has already shown us over the last 3 years they will use every tactic legal or illegal to go after their political foes, we have seen this play out, not to mention the activist lawyers that work on behalf of the Federal government.
And this is the concern Conservatives have as well, should Democrats pickup a heavy majority or even control all 3 branches of government, so yes, that feeling goes both ways.
bass4funk
You are on the other side of the Atlantic, so you need not worry about anything.
Thank God for Congress….
Pretty much
TaiwanIsNotChina
Basically an undisciplined bully as a candidate.
Blackstar
He is the enemy within.
bass4funk
I never leave anything out about this admin
Like they did with only conservatives effectively taking a large percentage of wealthy donors out of the 2012 cycle? Who could forget? I didn’t! And whatever happened to Lois Lerner? Why was she never charged or held to account for the damage she caused? Now I see what libs are scared of a Trump Presidency. When libs break the law, they skate and are never held to account, but when conservatives break the law or suspected of having done so, they are treated like terrorists. Now their paranoia is getting the best of them and they’re hoping 45 soon to be 47 won’t do to them what they did to us these past 12 years. This incidents are why people are so distrustful of the Federal government on every level.
Her administration?
Which the Dems routinely do
Garland days are numbered, tick, tick, tick…..
NCIS Reruns
Sadly there are plenty of ambitious, career-minded officers in the military who would not be overly concerned over whether an order they are issued is constitutional are not. It is far better never to put them in the position of having to struggle with their consciences, by avoiding the election of a sociopathic commander-in-chief.
itsonlyrocknroll
Whatever Donald Trumps motivations actions in office, whether allegedly instructing the US armed forces to confront protesters, the context relating to the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack, the legal shenanigans etc. is open to propaganda, supposition weaponization during a US election.
The reality will be the result November 5th.
No amount of media brutalization of either Trump or Harris, after such vilification, humiliation hate played out in public will alter the fact with will be a close call
Zaphod
TaiwanIsNotChina
So the destruction of Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Libya did not violate international law? How about the occupation of the oil fields in Syria?
For reference, "Dump" did not start any new wars or committed irresponsible military adventures during his previous four years, remember? Would be a bit late to start that now.
Zaphod
itsonlyrocknroll
Yeah, it is quite incredible, watching this from the outside. They routinely talk about "deplorables", "garbage", "fascist" and compare an election rally to a Hitler event...... but claim at the same time the OTHER side uses inflammatory rethoric. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
itsonlyrocknroll
Zaphod, I watch the media inflame this US 2024 election to the point that both candidates have lost all sense of reasoning. I cannot imagine how the US as a country will find unity after November 5th.