On August 16, 2025, the streets of Washington, D.C., became the stage for a heated and symbolic confrontation: scores of demonstrators marched under the scorching sun, voicing their opposition to President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops. The scene, captured by The New York Times and other outlets, was more than a protest—it was a flashpoint in a deepening debate over the role of the U.S. military in domestic affairs, the boundaries of presidential power, and the fragile state of American democracy.
President Trump’s decision to send National Guard troops not only to Washington but also to Los Angeles has sparked intense criticism and concern from across the political spectrum. As reported by The New York Times and echoed by other major publications, the move is widely seen as a dramatic escalation in the ongoing culture war gripping the nation. Critics argue that the deployments are less about public safety and more about political theater, with Trump targeting cities run by Democrats—often referred to as “blue cities”—while ignoring similar or worse crime rates in Republican-led areas.
According to William S. Becker, writing for Nexstar Media, "Trump is engaged in his own experiment—a dangerous performative political stunt in which he’s federalized the National Guard and deployed regular U.S. troops to cities run by Democrats." Becker and others point out that Trump’s so-called law-and-order rationale is undermined by his own record, which includes granting clemency to nearly 1,600 people involved in the January 6 riot and facing numerous indictments and convictions himself. "Few Americans have shown more contempt for law and order than the four-times indicted, twice impeached, 34-times convicted president—the first felon to occupy the White House," Becker wrote.
The controversy is not just about the optics or the legality of the deployments. There are deep concerns about the impact on the military itself. David French, a former Army judge advocate and columnist for The New York Times, reflected on his own service and the unique, nonpartisan character of the American military. "The military I love is under threat—from its own commander in chief," French wrote. He warned that using the military as a tool in domestic political battles risks eroding the trust and cohesion that make it the nation’s most respected institution. "If the president uses the military against his domestic foes, he risks fracturing its bond with the American public and diminishing its ability to recruit young Americans from all of our political factions," French added.
This concern is not merely theoretical. The U.S. military is a remarkably diverse institution, with members holding a range of political views. While data suggest a right-leaning tilt, French emphasizes, "You simply cannot assume the political beliefs of a man or woman in uniform." Forcing soldiers into politically charged domestic operations, he argues, could dragoon Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike into a campaign many find grotesque. This, in turn, threatens morale and cohesion—two qualities essential to military effectiveness.
There is also the matter of training and readiness. National Guard units, let alone active-duty troops, are not prepared to police American streets. "Even members of the military police are ill-suited for the task. They’re certainly trained in basic policing tactics, but they’re trained to enforce the Uniform Code of Military Justice in a unique military environment, not to police civilian streets to enforce state and local laws," French explained in The New York Times. Deploying soldiers in this way risks not only fruitless and frustrating service but also the possibility of tragic misunderstandings between troops and civilians. "The military can be indispensable in restoring order in the face of large-scale riots... But in the absence of a total breakdown in public order, they’re simply not trained to be effective civilian police officers," he added.
Beyond the immediate risks, critics warn of longer-term consequences for national security. Diverting thousands of troops to domestic operations could degrade the military’s readiness for its primary mission: deterring and, if necessary, defeating foreign adversaries. "Internal security operations are poor preparation for combat with advanced militaries. And when a military is pulled into politics, it can create paths to promotion that put a premium on personal loyalty, not combat effectiveness," French cautioned. He drew a stark parallel to Russia, where political loyalty has undermined military professionalism—with disastrous results on the battlefield.
These concerns are amplified by reports that Trump is personally interviewing candidates for top military positions, a break from tradition that raises fears of politicization at the highest levels. As French observed, "At the beginning of Trump’s second term, he fired a number of top generals (including the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) for transparently ideological reasons. And now he is reportedly personally interviewing candidates for top military positions—a departure from past practice."
The dangers of blurring the line between military and civilian authority are not lost on military leaders themselves. The memory of June 1, 2020, looms large, when Trump staged a now-infamous photo op in Lafayette Square after police forcibly cleared peaceful protesters. Gen. Mark Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared in battle fatigues alongside Trump but later expressed deep regret. "My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics. I should not have been there," Milley said in a public apology. He urged future officers to remain steadfastly apolitical, a sentiment echoed by many in the military community.
Legal experts and military ethicists have highlighted the importance of resisting unlawful orders. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the use of federal troops in domestic law enforcement, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice obligates soldiers to reject unlawful commands. "Uniformed commanders also have a specific obligation to reject an order that’s unlawful," Becker noted, referencing the lessons of Nuremberg and the enduring principle that following orders is no defense for illegal acts.
As the nation grapples with these unprecedented challenges, some see the military as the last bulwark against authoritarianism. "The U.S. military might be the last line of defense for protecting our democratic republic, since Congress and the courts have largely capitulated to his autocratic rule," Becker wrote. The warning is stark: if military leaders and voters alike do not stand up to politicized misuse of force, the United States risks sliding toward the kind of authoritarian rule endured by much of the world’s population.
In the end, the words of Gen. Jim Mattis, Trump’s first secretary of defense, resonate with renewed urgency. In 2017, he told American service members, "You just hold the line until our country gets back to understanding and respecting each other, being friendly to one another—what Americans owe to one another." Today, that line is being tested as never before. Whether it holds may determine the future of American democracy itself.
