'Political props': From deployment to a parade, Trump's use of military prompts concerns
President Donald Trump is sending the military into American streets in provocative ways, with a deployment to quell protests and a massive military parade, projecting power and celebrating troops while raising alarms among critics.
Trump has long talked about wielding the military more aggressively for domestic purposes. He clashed with military leaders who resisted some of his requests during his first administration.
Trump's approach to the military is coming into focus again during a week that began with the Commander-in-Chief deploying Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and will end with the planned military parade celebrating the Army's birthday.
'I think Trump looks at the military as political props used to demonstrate his authority,' said former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, now a frequent critic of the president.
Trump's recent military actions and parade plans are drawing comparisons to authoritarian regimes. Newsom said Trump is acting like a 'dictator.'
Administration officials have said the military is needed in L.A. to maintain order.
Questioned by members of Congress about the troop deployment during a June 10 hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the situation in L.A. as 'lawless' and said, 'President Trump believes in law and order.'
"If we didn't get involved, right now Los Angeles would be burning," Trump said June 10 during an event in the Oval Office.
In the past, Trump's views on the military and concerns about how he might wield troops domestically have generated bipartisan pushback.
After Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to accept the results, all 10 living secretaries of Defense – Republicans and Democrats – signed a letter urging military leaders not to get involved in the election aftermath, signaling apprehension that Trump would use the military in ways they described as 'dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional.'
Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn suggested in a television interview after the 2020 election that the president could invoke martial law and seize voting machines to rerun the election, which former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper later described in his book as 'scary.' Trump asked Flynn about the martial law idea during a White House meeting in December 2020, according to media reports.
With that backdrop, Democrats and other Trump critics are raising concerns about the potential consequences of Trump's decision to send troops to Los Angeles, his planned parade and future military escalations he might consider.
During his first term, military leaders sometimes pushed back on his suggestions, people who 'we may euphemistically call, 'the adults in the room,'" said William Banks, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Syracuse University and founding director of the Institute on National Security and Counter Terrorism.
'I think his senior people today are of a far different caliber," Banks said. "Put pejoratively, they're sycophants.'
Some legal experts question whether Trump has the authority to circumvent Newsom and deploy the California National Guard under the law he's using. California has sued to stop Trump's deployment.
'It's sort of wading into uncharted legal territory, and it raises a lot of legal questions and concerns, frankly, the way that he is using this law,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Looming over the discussion is the Insurrection Act, which Trump sought to invoke during his first term. It gives the president wide leeway to use troops domestically.
Trump is using federal troops to protect federal property and law enforcement in L.A. The Insurrection Act would give him expanded authority to use troops for policing, experts say.
'The Insurrection Act is dangerously broad… something close to a blank check if he chooses to take the political hit for invoking it,' said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell.
Congress adopted the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, barring the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless authorized, such as through the Insurrection Act. It reflects 'a centuries-old principle in Anglo-American law against military interference in civilian affairs,' Goitein, of the Brennan Center, said.
'If the leader of a country can turn the military inward against the people, that has great implications for individual liberties,' Goitein added. 'It is a step on the path to tyranny, if not an indication of tyranny itself.'
Trump mulled invoking the Act during a White House event on June 10.
"If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible."
Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible."
The Insurrection Act has been invoked 30 times, most recently in May 1992 by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson to police rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King.
Presidents from both parties have considered invoking the act against the wishes of state governors, such as during civil rights conflicts during the 1950s and 1960s.
More recently, some Democrats urged former President Joe Biden to deploy the National Guard to remove razor-wire barriers that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott installed along the border with Mexico, but he didn't. Banks said Trump appeared to be edging back from invoking the Act, which could have long-term consequences.
'It could be corrosive,' Banks said.
Bolton, Trump's former aide, predicted any effort by Trump to use the Insurrection Act would end up in court, but said, "I also don't think we should get paranoid and just engage in speculation about what he might do." Trump has been careful to steer clear of the Insurrection Act so far, Bolton noted.
Esper, the former Defense secretary, resisted Trump's efforts to invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Esper's book describes an Oval Office meeting with Trump, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other administration officials on June 1, 2020, as 'probably one of the most significant meetings a secretary of defense ever had with a commander in chief.'
During the meeting, which occurred amid protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country following the death of George Floyd – an unarmed Black man killed by Minneapolis police – Trump repeatedly brought up the Insurrection Act and pushed to use active-duty troops to quell protests, Esper wrote.
'Can't you just shoot them Just shoot them in the legs or something,' Trump said, according to Esper.
'I didn't have to look at General Milley to know his reaction,' Esper wrote. 'I was sure it was the same as mine: Utter disgust at the suggestion, and a feeling we were only minutes away from a disastrous outcome.'
Esper wrote that Trump eventually 'backed down.' His book details other concerns about Trump's approach to the military, including a proposal for a July 4 celebration in 2020 featuring a fleet of military vehicles that he worried would politicize the military.
Milley told Trump's chief of staff that such displays were 'not what the United States does – it was what authoritarian states like North Korea do,' according to Esper.
The same concerns have been raised about Trump's military parade planned for June 14, which will celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary with tanks and other vehicles rolling through the streets of the nation's capital. Trump's 79th birthday is the same day.
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, called it a "dictator-style military parade."
'There's nothing wrong with military parades when there's reason for them, but the fact it's Trump's birthday on Saturday is not a good reason for it,' Bolton said.
Trump said on June 10 that the parade would be "fantastic" and warned people protesting would be met with "very heavy force."
"It's going to be an amazing day," he said. "We have tanks, we have planes, we have all sorts of things. And I think it's going to be great. We're going to celebrate our country for a change."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump using military in provocative ways with protests, parade
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
29 minutes ago
- Atlantic
In Minnesota, America's Luck Ran Out
Early this morning, a gunman apparently impersonating a police officer targeted two Democratic Minnesota state lawmakers in their homes. First, he shot State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, who were seriously wounded. Law-enforcement officials believe the same gunman then shot Melissa Hortman, who served as Minnesota's speaker of the House from 2019 to 2024. She was killed, along with her husband, Mark. In September 2023, shortly after Donald Trump yet again encouraged direct political violence against his opponents, I wrote this: 'As a political scientist who studies political violence across the globe, I would chalk up the lack of high-profile assassinations in the United States during the Trump and post-Trump era to dumb luck … Eventually, all luck runs out.' That luck has now run out, in an idyllic Minneapolis suburb. Although details are still emerging, law-enforcement officials are searching for a former appointee of Democratic Governor Tim Walz in connection with the killings, which Walz called 'politically motivated.' The gunman reportedly had a manifesto and a list of targets that included the names of other Minnesota politicians as well as abortion providers in the state. Law-enforcement authorities intercepted but were not able to arrest the shooter shortly after he assassinated Hortman. Had they not, it's possible that he would have made his way to the homes of other Minnesota officials, trying to murder them too. Political violence—and assassinations in particular—are notoriously difficult to predict, precisely because the violence is often carried out by 'lone wolf' attackers. Just one deranged zealot is sufficient to carry out an act of consequential violence. In a country of 340 million people and even more guns, there will always be a small pool of potential killers eager to wreak havoc on the political system. That's why researchers who study political violence, including myself, try to understand what elevates or reduces the risk of violence, even if it can never be fully eradicated. In a context such as the United States, three key factors stand out: easy access to deadly weapons, intense polarization that paints political opponents as treasonous enemies rather than disagreeing compatriots, and incitements to political violence from high-profile public figures. When you combine those three social toxins, the likelihood of political violence increases, even as it remains impossible to predict who will be targeted or when attacks might be carried out. Again, law-enforcement officials still don't know the attacker's precise motivations, and trying to draw conclusions from any single act of political violence is foolish. Because they are rare, randomness plays a role in these instances, and many perpetrators are mentally unwell. But consider this comparison. Although we can't say that climate change caused a specific hurricane, we know that climate change produces stronger hurricanes. Similarly, we may not be able to draw a direct link from rhetoric to a specific act of violence, but we do know that incitements to violence make killings more likely. The United States has repeatedly refused to do anything about easy access to deadly weapons, despite having, by far, the highest rate of mass killings among developed democracies. As a result, the only feasible levers are reducing polarization and stopping high-profile incitements to commit violence. Instead, during the Trump era, polarization has sharply increased. And over the past decade, Trump himself has been the most dangerous political actor in terms of routinely inciting violence against his opponents, including against specific politicians who could become assassination targets. Such incitements matter. When a person with a massive public platform spreads information that encourages violence, attacks become more likely. From the April 2023 issue: Adrienne LaFrance on America's terrifying cycle of extremist violence From the beginning of his first campaign for president, Trump encouraged supporters to beat up hecklers at his rallies, saying he'd cover their legal bills if they ' knock the crap ' out of them. He floated the ideas of shooting looters, shooting shoplifters, and shooting migrants crossing the border. Trump also targeted the press, sharing a variety of violent memes involving specific outlets. He endorsed Greg Gianforte, now the governor of Montana, specifically because he violently attacked a reporter. ('Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type,' Trump said, to cheers.) And, at the end of his first term, Trump's speech on the National Mall on January 6 doused an already incendiary environment, culminating in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol building. Trump's rhetorical incitements to violence extend to politicians, too. He has called his political opponents ' human scum.' Even more worrying are Trump's endorsements of violence against specific Democrats. In 2016, he suggested that maybe there was something that ' Second Amendment people ' could do to deal with Hillary Clinton. In October 2022, when a QAnon disciple who had peddled Trump's lies about the 2020 election attempted to assassinate then–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—and fractured her husband's, Paul's, skull with a hammer—Trump made light of the incident. (His son Donald Trump Jr. posted a photo on Instagram of a hammer and a pair of underwear like the ones Paul Pelosi had been wearing during the attempted murder, with the caption: ' Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.') Less than a year later, Trump openly mused that Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be killed. When such language becomes normalized, deranged individuals may interpret rhetoric as marching orders. In 2018, Cesar Sayoc, a die-hard Trump supporter, mailed 16 pipe bombs to people who frequently appeared as targets in Trump's tweets. (Nobody died, but only because Sayoc wasn't skilled at making bombs.) In 2020, Trump tweeted that people should 'LIBERATE MICHIGAN!' in response to its COVID policies. Thirteen days later, armed protesters entered the state capitol building. A right-wing plot to kidnap the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, was narrowly foiled months later. It also matters that Trump is one of the biggest vectors for spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation in the United States. When a major political figure disseminates lies about shadowy plots and treasonous acts carried out by the 'human scum' on the other side of the aisle, that can increase the likelihood of violence. (Several followers of QAnon, which Trump has repeatedly amplified himself, have carried out political violence based on the conspiracy theory.) Trump often makes a brief show of condemning political violence—as he has with the killings in Minnesota. While trying to play both the arsonist and the firefighter on social media, his actions in power make clear where his true loyalties lie, sending much stronger signals. One of his first official acts at the start of his second term was to pardon or grant clemency to people convicted for their involvement in the January 6 riots, including those who had violently attacked police officers and were targeting lawmakers. In recent weeks, Trump has floated the possibility of pardoning the far-right zealots who sought to kidnap Governor Whitmer in Michigan. The message is unmistakable: Use violence against my political opponents and there may be a pardon waiting. Joe Biden abused his pardon power to protect his son from tax-evasion charges. Donald Trump abused his pardon power to condone those who attacked cops and hoped to murder politicians. Both abuses were bad. But they are not the same. Trump, more than anyone, should be aware of the risks of political violence. After all, he narrowly escaped an assassin's bullet last summer. He would be dead, but for a gust of wind or a slightly different tilt of his head. But when that assassination attempt happened, Biden didn't mock it; Kamala Harris didn't float the idea of pardoning the assassin; and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hadn't previously mused that Trump should be executed, or that he was human scum, or that Jeffries would pay the bills of people who used violence against Republicans. Neither party has a monopoly on the risks of political violence. Democrats and Republicans in public office are targets who face credible threats in a hyper-polarized political climate. Likewise, supporters of Democrats and supporters of Republicans are both capable of carrying out political violence. (There have also been a small number of statements by Democrats that could be interpreted as incitements to violence, including some by Representatives Maxine Waters of California and Dan Goldman of New York. Goldman apologized for his phrasing the following day.) The difference is that only one party is led by someone who uses his megaphone to routinely normalize and absolve acts of political violence. There is overwhelming evidence of this asymmetric rhetoric between those in party leadership. The United States is a fraying society, torn apart by polarization, intense disagreement, and ratcheting extremism. Cheap weapons of mass murder are readily available. And into that tinder box, Trump adds incendiary rhetoric. We don't know when or where the deadly conflagration will strike next, but more flames will no doubt come. We may still be shocked by tragic acts of political violence like the assassination in Minnesota, but we can no longer feign surprise.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Military parade kick offs in US capital as protesters decry Trump
Tanks, troops and marching bands assembled in the US capital for a massive parade of American military power requested by President Donald Trump, a show that was met by thousands of Americans around the country displaying another kind of power: protest. Hours before the parade honouring the Army's 250th anniversary was set to start, demonstrators turned out in streets and parks around the nation to decry the Republican president as a dictator or would-be king. They criticised Trump for using the military to respond to those protesting his deportation efforts and for sending tanks, thousands of marching troops and military aircraft out for show in the US capital. In Washington DC, anti-war protesters unfurled signs that said 'Homes not drones' not far from a display of armoured vehicles, helicopters and military-grade equipment on the National Mall set up to commemorate the US Army's birthday. Bowls of red, white and blue punch were ladled out to attendees, along with slices of a large Army-themed cake that uniformed officials cut with a sabre. Vendors outside the festival sold gear marking the military milestone. Others hawked Trump-themed merchandise. Mr Trump has been wanting a military parade in Washington DC ever since he watched one in France with tanks, soldier and jets overhead in 2017. His dream is set to finally be realised on a day that coincides with his 79th birthday and Flag Day, after organisers tacked the parade onto the line-up for the Army celebration. Mr Trump got regular updates on the planning and made requests for aircraft and hardware to capture the might of the military. The military procession was set to step off from the Lincoln Memorial later on Saturday, under the threat of stormy weather and to the accompaniment of protests elsewhere in the city. Mr Trump brushed off the possibility of both disruptions, with a social media post on Saturday morning that said the 'great military parade' would be on 'rain or shine'. The protests, he said earlier, 'will be met with very big force'. Hours ahead of the parade, crowds of protesters with anti-Trump signs marched toward the White House, escorted by police vehicles and officers on bicycles. Some held a giant banner that read: 'TRUMP MUST GO NOW'. The parade has drawn criticism for its price tag of up to 45 million dollars and the possibility that the lumbering tanks could tear up city streets. The US Army has taken a variety of steps to protect the streets, including laying metal plates along the route. About 6 in 10 Americans said Saturday's parade was 'not a good use' of government money. The vast majority of people, 78%, said they neither approve nor disapprove of the parade overall, according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs Research. Saturday's event is expected to include about 6,600 soldiers, 50 helicopters and 60-ton M1 Abrams battle tanks, as well as possibly 200,000 attendees and heightened security to match.
Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Australia Prime Minister Albanese to Meet Trump Tuesday at G-7
Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he is scheduled to meet US President Donald Trump on Tuesday during the G-7 summit in Canada. Albanese said he expected to meet Trump on the sidelines of the conference, the Australia Broadcasting Corp. reported.
