#567: Trump has Created a Civil-Military Crisis in American Democracy
Rudy Barnes, Jr. October 11, 2025
Trump has talked too much about the use of military force and not enough about national security policy and the civil-military relations that are so essential for a stable democracy. For Trump, talk about the military is cheap and honesty on the rule of law is in short supply. That was evident during an unexplained and unprecedented meeting of US military brass called by Trump’s Secretary of Defense (or War), Pete Hegseth on September 30.
The meeting was notable for its timing. It came just as Trump had started to act aggressively to deploy National Guard troops to Democratic cities as training grounds to reduce crime, despite state and city officials opposing Trump’s uninvited military invasions. In a real sense it proclaimed an invasion to proclaim Trump’s political power.
“Several hundred top military commanders turned up at Quantico having flown in from places as far away as Germany, Brussels, Japan and South Korea, and they sat mostly in silence as Trump talked for 73 minutes about the same things he talks about almost every day, no matter where he is or to whom he is speaking.” Trump did not elaborate on deteriorating civil-military relations or national security strategy, or how the military would be deployed in American cities. Instead he talked about the media, tariffs and the border, and going to a restaurant in Washington to eat dinner, and not being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize that he felt he had earned.
The words of Trump and Hegseth should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the civilian leadership intends to use the threat and actuality of violence to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights. Where Americans can take some comfort is in the quiet professionalism displayed by our military in this disgraceful and dangerous maelstrom.
What transpired was the commander in chief darkly asserting that “we’re under invasion from within.” Trump extolled his executive order “to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is gonna be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control.” The president claimed Washington, D.C., was more violent than anything our military experienced in Afghanistan.
Hegseth preceded the president, calling for a “historic reassertion of our purpose.” Sounding like the infamous sergeant major from the HBO series Generation Kill, he emphasized the importance of grooming standards and physical fitness. He also asserted ignoring the Law of War and to end “stupid rules of engagement,” saying that the military’s job is to “break things and kill people.”
The words of Trump and Hegseth should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the civilian leadership intends to use the threat and actuality of violence to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights. Where Americans, like me, can take some comfort is in the quiet professionalism displayed by our military in this disgraceful and dangerous maelstrom. Hegseth called all the military’s commanding officers to Quantico, Virginia, for a pep rally and Gave the Military Brass a Rehashed Speech. See Shawn McCreech, NYTimes, at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/30/us/politics/trump-military-brass-speech.html.
Trump extolled his executive order “to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is gonna be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within. He said he had instructed the secretary of defense to “use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.” The president claimed Washington, D.C., was more violent than anything our military experienced in Afghanistan. Sounding like the infamous sergeant major from the HBO series Generation Kill, Hegseth emphasized the importance of grooming standards and physical fitness, and asserted an end to “stupid rules of engagement,” saying that the military’s job is to “break things and kill people.”
The civilian leader of the Department of Defense instructed the brass that “if the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign”—especially when coupled with the president’s calls for violence against fellow Americans. These are unprecedented and dangerous words from the civilian leadership of our military. What was reassuring was how the military leaders reacted. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine introduced the secretary as the secretary of war—distasteful, since only Congress has the authority to change the department’s name, and it has not done so. But Caine and his colleagues exemplified the professional restraint of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at State of the Union addresses: present but not participating in the politics.
Trump was clearly taken aback, encouraging them: “If you want to applaud, applaud.” They did not, just as the chiefs do not applaud at the political festival that is the State of the Union address. That is the appropriate professional response by the military when forced by their civilian leaders into being present at political events. See Foreign Policy, By Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, see Foreign Policy, Oct 1, 2025.
At this unprecedented meeting, U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth behaved reprehensibly. Their speeches before several hundred assembled military commanders and their senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) were tantamount to incitement—a genuinely dangerous effort to suborn the military’s oath and condition them for using violence against their fellow Americans. Their words should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the civilian leadership intends to use the threat and actuality of violence to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights. Where Americans can take some comfort is in the quiet professionalism displayed by our military in this disgraceful and dangerous maelstrom.
Hegseth and Trump called all the military’s commanding officers to Quantico, Virginia, for a pep rally. What transpired was the commander in chief darkly asserting that “we’re under invasion from within.” Trump extolled his executive order “to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances.
Trump said he had instructed the secretary of defense to “use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.” The president claimed Washington, D.C., was more violent than anything our military experienced in Afghanistan. Hegseth preceded the president, calling for a “historic reassertion of our purpose,” emphasizing the importance of grooming standards and physical fitness over obeying the rule of law in the Constitution.
These are unprecedented and dangerous words from the civilian leadership of our military that deny the Constitutional rule of law in warfare. What was reassuring was how the military leaders reacted. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine introduced the secretary as the secretary of war—distasteful, since only Congress has the authority to change the department’s name, and it has not done so. But that was probably unavoidable in the circumstances and was more than balanced out by the comportment of Caine and his colleagues. They exemplified the professional restraint of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at State of the Union addresses: present but not participating in the politics.
Trump is sure to be disappointed, as he was disappointed at the niceness of soldiers during the Army parade over the summer. Before today’s event, the president threatened: “I’m going to be meeting with generals and with admirals and with leaders, and if I don’t like somebody, I’m going to fire them right on the spot.” Nobody was fired on the spot, but the president and the secretary may retaliate for this disciplined response. Congress, the other constitutionally empowered source of civilian oversight of the military, ought to put its weight behind preventing any retribution.
During the 1867 constitutional crisis, Ulysses S. Grant, the commanding general of the Army, was pinioned between Congress impeaching President Andrew Johnson and that president threatening to disband Congress. Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, appointing Grant the civilian war secretary concurrent with his military appointment. Congress threatened Grant with five years in prison and a $10,000 fine if he accepted the appointment.
In what feels like an important decision for our time, Grant determined that in peacetime, the legislature has the superior claim to military subordination. Our current Congress might profit from the example and exercise its Article I authorities to establish military policies and shield our military from partisan onslaughts of the kind we saw today. From The Atlantic Daily <newsletters@theatlantic.com> October 7, 2025; and
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/10/civil-military-crisis-trump-hegseth/684486. See also, https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/10/01/trump-military-generals-incitement-civilians/.
Summary:
When the President and Secretary of Defense call for senior military leaders to ignore laws that restrict their use of force in military operations, they make a mockery of the rule of law and their oath to support and defend the Constitution as the foundation of the rule of law. If any should resign, they should include the President and his Secretary of Defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment