Trump Warns Military of Possible Conflict with Citizens
On Tuesday, President Trump cautioned top military officials that he might engage in “war” with American citizens, signaling a significant increase in the ongoing legal dispute surrounding the deployment of troops on U.S. streets.
In a speech at Quantico, Virginia, he remarked: “What they did in San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles—those places are incredibly unsafe, and we’re trying to fix them one by one. That’s war, too. It’s war from within.” He emphasized the need for commanders to use American cities as “training grounds.”
These statements triggered immediate backlash. Oregon has initiated legal challenges, with several experts expressing concern that the president’s approach may be unlawful. “He suggests learning how to become a warrior in American cities,” noted Daniel C. Schwartz, a former advisor to the National Security Agency. “It’s alarming, and it’s certainly illegal.”
The militarization for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement and crowd control began back in early June, with thousands of Marines deployed in Los Angeles. This move has led to ongoing conflicts between city and state leaders.
A federal judge ruled this fall that such military deployments were illegal, ordering that soldiers serving under Trump could not carry out law enforcement duties in California, reminding him of his role as the leader of national law enforcement.
Despite this ruling, many troops remained active in Los Angeles, and while the case navigates through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, additional troops are anticipated in Portland and Chicago, despite local objections.
“We’ve been working hard to almost infiltrate the situation,” stated Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University. “The threat level must be serious, but I don’t think the Trump administration has substantiated that claim.”
Others share similar worries. “I’m quite concerned,” said Irwin Kemelinski, dean of the Berkeley School of Law. “Using military forces for domestic law enforcement is indicative of an authoritarian regime.”
On Monday, the Oregon Attorney General filed a lawsuit arguing that Trump’s justification for sending troops was unfounded and exaggerated. Illinois officials, who have seen the Trump administration focus heavily on immigration enforcement in Chicago, are also preparing to challenge this move.
Though the legal scenarios differ, experts noted that the Oregon lawsuit closely resembles the California situation still in litigation. “That’s exactly the model they follow,” remarked Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
In contrast to the National Guard’s deployment to Washington in August, the military’s presence in Los Angeles and Portland relies on a lesser-known legal provision that permits federal intervention with state objections under specific conditions.
California’s ongoing challenge to these justifications is unprecedented, and in the Ninth Circuit, judges will scrutinize the president’s interpretations of the situation closely. A larger panel of judges is currently reviewing the case.
A memo from California’s Associate Bishop’s Secretary warned that the decision in June could encourage troop deployments in other areas. “The defendant seems to believe that the memorandum from June allows for indefinite deployment of National Guard units for nearly any reason,” Hu wrote, urging Congress to curb this unprecedented militarization of law enforcement.
Experts are concerned about the vague 19th-century law at the core of this debate, which is riddled with loopholes, leading some to see this as a slippery slope toward a more militarized America. “Since the Civil War, we haven’t experienced this kind of presence on the streets,” Schwartz noted. “Once people grow accustomed to armed representatives in cities, it risks becoming normalized.”
During his speech to military leaders, Trump escalated his rhetoric. “We are being invaded from within,” he declared. “It’s not unlike foreign adversaries, but it’s more challenging because they don’t wear uniforms.” He advocated for the creation of a “quick reactionary force” to address civil disorder.
He referenced historical precedents, claiming, “George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, George Bush, and others used the military to maintain order.” Trump’s interpretation of these instances drew attention, as experts outlined essential differences compared to contemporary issues.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegses seemed to downplay the notion of internal conflict, instead lauding what he called the “warrior spirit” of military reform efforts, while criticizing what he viewed as a culture problem in modern military ranks. “It’s disheartening to see unfit leaders in their positions,” Heggs remarked.
With troop deployments on the rise nationally, experts indicate that the ultimate decision will rest with the Supreme Court. “It’s shaping up to be a Supreme Court test,” Schwartz concluded. “It will determine if this president continues to operate beyond constitutional limits or if there will be a check on his powers.”
