The Risks of Deploying U.S. Troops Domestically Under Political Direction

Looking back, one of my deepest regrets is not joining the Army earlier in life. Commissioned at 37, I was considered a latecomer to the military and struggled to impress during officer training. Nevertheless, I completed the course and served eight years in the reserves, including active deployments to Iraq and South Korea.

I have a profound love for this country and a strong belief in our missions. Serving as an Army judge advocate gave me a sense of purpose, even if only in a small role. But what I truly miss—and what fuels my regret about joining later—is the camaraderie and character of the people I served alongside.

The Army is far from perfect. In my role overseeing military justice, I encountered soldiers at their worst. Yet, until you experience an Army unit firsthand, especially under fire, you cannot fully grasp the courage, discipline, and integrity that define the average American soldier.

Sadly, the military I admire now faces internal threats—chiefly from its own commander in chief.

Much public discussion around President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., has focused on its implications for American democracy. The question arises: should military forces be stationed on city streets at the discretion of a political leader, rather than in response to genuine emergencies?

Equally concerning, however, is the impact these deployments have on the military institution itself. This administration is not merely placing troops on American streets—it is drawing the military into the nation’s cultural and political battles. Moreover, the expansion of such deployments into predominantly Democratic cities, despite these areas often having lower homicide rates than many cities in Republican-led states, reflects a troubling politicization of military force.

The U.S. military remains the most trusted government institution, thanks largely to its longstanding tradition of political neutrality. If the military is weaponized against political opponents, that trust risks erosion, undermining recruitment efforts and damaging the institution’s cohesion.

This alone demands presidential restraint. Yet the dangers posed by these domestic deployments run far deeper, threatening the military’s core effectiveness and integrity.

There are several critical concerns.

First, these actions jeopardize military unity and morale. While the military may lean politically right, it remains remarkably diverse in beliefs. It is misleading and harmful to assume uniform political alignment among service members.

Turning segments of the military into an extension of a partisan campaign coerces service members—Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike—into participating in a political agenda that many find objectionable.

Military service requires obedience to lawful orders, even if those orders seem misguided or unwise. This obligation imposes a moral responsibility on national leadership: if soldiers are willing to sacrifice for the nation, the commander in chief must ensure that their deployment serves national interests, not personal political vendettas.

Second, the military is being tasked beyond its training and expertise. National Guard units, and certainly active-duty troops, are not prepared to serve as civilian police. Even military police specialize in enforcing military law within military settings, not policing civilian populations under state and local legal frameworks.

While the military can play a vital role in quelling large-scale riots that overwhelm local law enforcement, absent such crises, they lack the training and tools to effectively police communities.

Currently, the National Guard troops in Washington appear assigned mainly to logistical support and symbolic presence intended to deter crime, rather than active policing.

My greater concern lies not in the risk of violent incidents—soldiers generally exercise exceptional discipline with their weapons—but in the frustration and resentment that can result from a mission perceived as ineffective or pointless.

Third, these domestic deployments threaten national security by diverting critical military resources away from their primary mission: defending the nation against foreign threats.

Internal security duties offer little preparation for combat against advanced adversaries. Moreover, politicizing the military can shift advancement criteria toward loyalty over competence, undermining combat readiness.

Authoritarian regimes have repeatedly demonstrated this danger. Russia's military setbacks in Ukraine have been partly attributed to political considerations overshadowing professionalism.

It is disconcerting to observe parallels emerging here. Early in his second term, President Trump dismissed several top generals for clear ideological reasons and has reportedly begun personally vetting candidates for key military posts, breaking with longstanding tradition.

In 2017, General Jim Mattis delivered an impromptu address to U.S. troops in Afghanistan, famously urging them to "hold the line."

"You are a great example for our country right now," Mattis said. "It has its problems—you know it and I know it—but you hold the line, my fine young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. You hold the line until our country returns to respect and understanding among its people."

I once believed this speech referred solely to defending against foreign adversaries while the nation struggled with internal divisions.

Now, I see it differently. Our all-volunteer force reflects the nation’s diversity, and Mattis was calling on service members to demonstrate that Americans can stand—and sometimes sacrifice—for each other despite profound differences. He was urging the military to lead by example: to hold the line and also to show the way.

I am confident that most troops deployed in Washington will strive to embody this ideal. Their integrity, discipline, and patriotism will prevent them from becoming oppressive enforcers like those in authoritarian regimes. They will execute a misguided mission honorably.

Yet, when that mission serves a partisan, retaliatory agenda on American streets, it threatens the fundamental social contract between a democracy and its military. The Army may seek to hold the line, but a commander in chief driven by anger and power risks inflicting lasting harm on the nation’s armed forces.