Trump hints at expanded role for the military within the US. A legacy law gives him few guardrails

23

In a recent campaign event held in Iowa, former President Donald Trump hinted at the possibility of an expanded role for the military within the United States, raising concerns and questions about the potential use of military forces for domestic purposes. During his speech, Trump expressed frustration about not being able to use the military to address violence in predominantly Democratic cities and states during his previous presidency.

Trump referred to New York City and Chicago as “crime dens” and indicated that if he were to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, he would not hesitate to employ military intervention in such situations. While he did not provide specific details on how he would utilize the military, Trump and his advisers have suggested that they could have broad authority to deploy military units within the country.

One of the key legal frameworks that would enable such actions is the Insurrection Act, which dates back to 1792 and grants the president significant power to call upon reserve or active-duty military units to respond to domestic unrest. Importantly, this authority is not subject to court review, and the primary requirement is that the president must request the participants to disperse.

Joseph Nunn, a national security expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, highlighted that the primary constraint on a president’s use of the Insurrection Act is political, as presidents typically want to avoid being seen as sending tanks into American cities. However, the legal framework itself provides few impediments to a president’s actions.

The prospect of Trump’s potential use of the military for various purposes, including addressing violent crime in cities, enforcing immigration policies, and combating foreign drug cartels, has raised questions about the implications for military oaths, presidential power, and the individuals Trump might appoint to support his approach. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was briefly Trump’s national security adviser and faced legal issues related to the FBI’s Russia probe, has been mentioned as a potential figure in such scenarios.

It’s worth noting that any attempts to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military for domestic policing could face resistance from within the Pentagon. Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders have emphasized the importance of their oaths and condemned the events of January 6, 2021, as “sedition and insurrection.”

Despite potential pushback, Trump continues to enjoy significant support among veterans and military personnel, with a majority having voted for him in the 2020 presidential election and 2022 midterms. However, the legal and ethical considerations surrounding the use of the military for domestic purposes remain complex, with experts pointing out that military personnel are not obligated to follow unlawful orders, even from the president. Nevertheless, the stakes for those who refuse to obey orders, particularly if they are later deemed lawful, are exceptionally high, including the risk of ending their careers and facing legal consequences.

In summary, the discussion about the potential expansion of the military’s role within the United States under a Trump presidency raises important legal, ethical, and political questions, highlighting the delicate balance between presidential authority and the principles of military service and the Constitution.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Military Use in US Politics

More about Military Use in US Politics

• Insurrection Act (Wikipedia)
• Donald Trump’s Potential Use of Military Power (Associated Press)
• Presidential Power and the Military (Brennan Center for Justice)
• Military Oaths and Ethical Considerations (Syracuse University)
• Use of the Insurrection Act in History (HistoryNet)