On October 1, 2025, President Donald Trump took the stage at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia and delivered a speech that sent shockwaves across the political and legal landscape of the United States. Addressing hundreds of top military officers from around the globe, Trump announced a controversial new plan: to use American cities as training grounds for the U.S. military, a move he framed as necessary to combat what he repeatedly termed the “enemy from within.” According to Reuters and the Associated Press, the president singled out Chicago, Illinois, and Portland, Oregon, describing the latter as looking like a “war zone.” He warned that his administration would be “going into Chicago very soon,” aligning with his broader push to involve the military more directly in domestic law enforcement.
Trump’s remarks marked a stark departure from the traditional boundaries between military and civilian spheres. The speech, which many observers said resembled a political rally more than a commander-in-chief’s address, focused heavily on themes of domestic crime and political discord. The president was unequivocal in his expectations for the military brass in attendance. “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future,” Trump said, according to People’s World. The warning underscored the administration’s confrontational approach and drew immediate scrutiny from civil rights advocates and legal scholars.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who spoke before Trump, echoed the president’s tone. Hegseth urged officers who disagreed with the administration’s vision to resign honorably and outlined plans to overhaul military culture, including changes to inspector general and equal opportunity programs. He also emphasized strict, male-based physical fitness standards for all personnel, signaling a return to more traditional military norms.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wasted no time publicly backing Trump’s plan. During an appearance on CNN’s “Inside Politics,” Johnson described the proposal as a “win-win scenario,” suggesting National Guard members would be proud to serve in such a capacity. “They brought crime down dramatically in D.C. And all of us are safe. Our staffs are safe. They’re not walking in fear right now. I think we should do that in every major city run by Democrats who aren’t serious,” Johnson said, as reported by Nexstar Media. Johnson made a distinction between deploying the National Guard and regular military troops, but his support for the overall strategy was clear.
Trump’s plan is not without precedent. His administration has previously deployed active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border and sent National Guard units to patrol streets in Washington, Memphis, Portland, and Chicago. National Guard and Marine personnel have also been sent to Los Angeles. But the proposal to use American urban centers as permanent training grounds for the military marks a significant escalation in domestic policy and has drawn fierce criticism from across the political spectrum.
Democratic officials have been especially vocal in their opposition. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) didn’t mince words when he called Trump an “idiot” for suggesting cities be used as training grounds. “He doesn’t actually understand how the military works,” Gallego said on CNN, warning that most U.S. citizens would stand against such a move in civil protests. Former President Obama also weighed in earlier this year, cautioning that “the erosion of basic principles like due process and the expanding use of our military on domestic soil puts the liberties of all Americans at risk, and should concern Democrats and Republicans alike,” as reported by Nexstar Media.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had already sounded the alarm on Constitution Day, September 17, noting the “intrusion of military force into civilian life.” The organization pointed to recent deployments of Marines in downtown Los Angeles and National Guard troops from red states patrolling Washington, D.C., as evidence that the administration’s plans were only just beginning. The ACLU warned that the expansion of such deployments to other cities, especially Chicago, could set a dangerous precedent.
Trump’s speech at Quantico went even further than previous statements. He declared, “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military and the Guard. We’re under invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms.” He added that this would be “a major part for some of the people in this room,” referring to the assembled military leadership. Trump also boasted about the Pentagon’s new quick reaction force, established under his administration, which he said would undertake this “war from within.”
The president’s remarks included sharp criticism of Democratic leaders in targeted cities. After calling Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker “stupid, very stupid” for opposing him, Trump insisted that Chicago “needs the military desperately.” He recounted a phone call with Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, who reportedly told him there was “no insurrection or threat to public safety that necessitates military intervention in Portland or any other city in our state.” According to People’s World, Kotek, state Attorney General Daniel Rayfield, and the city of Portland had filed a lawsuit in federal court to block the arrival of Trump’s troops.
Critics have pointed out that Trump’s plan appears to violate the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the Army for domestic law enforcement without congressional approval or a constitutional exception. The act was passed after the Civil War to prevent federal troops from policing U.S. cities—a practice that had fueled resentment and repression in the post-Reconstruction South. Trump attempted to justify his actions by drawing historical parallels to past presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln’s deployment of troops to quell the New York City draft riots in 1863 and Grover Cleveland’s use of federal forces during the Pullman Strike in 1894.
Legal experts warn that the president’s sweeping assertion of power could undermine constitutional democracy. Brad Thomson of the National Lawyers Guild’s Chicago chapter told Channel 32 that attorney-observers had witnessed “one-sided attacks by law enforcement” against peaceful protesters, not the violence against federal agents that Trump claimed. Thomson emphasized that those arrested included U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.
Some Republican officials have sought to distance themselves from the proposal. During a campaign event at Fairleigh Dickinson University, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli was asked about Trump’s plan. Ciattarelli sidestepped the question, suggesting that with a tough Attorney General working with county prosecutors, there would be no need for troops or National Guard deployments in New Jersey. “When I’m governor, the president won’t have to worry about that,” he said, according to InsiderNJ.
As the debate rages on, the question of the military’s role in domestic affairs remains front and center. The late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once warned that the president’s war power is “the most dangerous one to free government in the whole catalogue of powers.” With Trump’s latest proposal, that warning seems more relevant than ever. The coming weeks will test the strength of American institutions—and the nation’s commitment to the balance between security and liberty.
