Pentagon plan would create military ‘reaction force' for civil unrest
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The proposal, which has not been previously reported, represents another potential expansion of President Trump's willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil. It relies on a section of US Code that allows the commander in chief to circumvent limitations on the military's use within the United States.
Advertisement
The documents, marked 'predecisional,' are comprehensive and contain extensive discussion about the potential societal implications of establishing such a program. They were compiled by National Guard officials and bear time stamps as recent as late July and early August. Fiscal year 2027 is the earliest this program could be created and funded through the Pentagon's traditional budgetary process, the documents say, leaving unclear whether the initiative could begin sooner through an alternative funding source.
Advertisement
It is also unclear whether the proposal has been shared yet with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
'The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe,' Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in a statement. 'We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.'
The National Guard Bureau did not return a request for comment.
While most National Guard commands have fast-response teams for use within their home states, the proposal under evaluation by the Trump administration would entail moving troops from one state to another.
The National Guard tested the concept ahead of the 2020 election, putting 600 troops on alert in Arizona and Alabama as the country braced for possible political violence. The test followed months of unrest in cities across the country, prompted by the police murder of George Floyd, that spurred National Guard deployments in numerous locations. Trump, then nearing the end of his first term, sought to employ active-duty combat troops while Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and other Pentagon officials urged him to rely instead on the Guard, which is trained to address civil disturbances.
Trump has summoned the military for domestic purposes like few of his predecessors. He did so most recently on Monday, authorizing the mobilization of 800 D.C. National Guard troops to bolster enhanced law enforcement activity in Washington that he said is necessary to address violent crime. Data maintained by the D.C. police shows such incidents are in decline; the city's mayor called the move 'unsettling and unprecedented.'
Advertisement
Earlier this year, over the objections of California's governor and other Democrats, Trump dispatched more than 5,000 National Guard members and active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area under a rarely used authority permitting the military's use for quelling insurrection. Administration officials said the mission was necessary to protect federal personnel and property amid protests denouncing Trump's immigration policies. His critics called the deployment unnecessary and a gross overreach. Before long, many of the troops involved were doing
unrelated support work, including a raid on a marijuana farm more than 100 miles away.
The Trump administration also has dispatched thousands of troops to the southern border in a dramatic show of force meant to discourage illegal migration.
National Guard troops can be mobilized for federal missions inside the United States under two main authorities. The first, under Title 10, puts troops under the president's direction, where they can support law enforcement activity but not perform arrests or investigations.
The other kind, Title 32, is a federal-state status where troops are controlled by their state governor but federally funded. It also allows more latitude to participate in law enforcement missions. National Guard troops from other states arrived in D.C. under such circumstances during racial justice
protests in 2020.
The proposal being evaluated now would allow the president to mobilize troops and put them on Title 32 orders in a state experiencing unrest. The documents detailing the plan acknowledge the potential for political friction should the governor refuse to work with the Pentagon.
Some legal scholars expressed apprehension about the proposal.
The Trump administration is relying on a shaky legal theory that the president can act broadly to protect federal property and functions said Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice who specializes in legal issues germane to the US military's domestic activities.
Advertisement
'You don't want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement,' he said. 'You don't want to normalize routine domestic deployment.'
The strategy is further
complicated by the fact that National Guard members from one state cannot operate in another state without permission, Nunn said. He also warned that any quick-reaction force established for civil unrest missions risks lowering the threshold for deploying National Guard troops into American cities.
'When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you're going to want to use it,' Nunn said. 'It actually makes it more likely that you're going to see domestic deployments - because why else have a task force?'
The proposal represents a major departure in how the National Guard traditionally has been used, said Lindsay P. Cohn, an associate professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. While it is not unusual for National Guard units to be deployed for domestic emergencies within their states, including for civil disturbances, this 'is really strange because essentially nothing is happening,' she said.
'Crime is going down. We don't have major protests or civil disturbances. There is no significant resistance from states' to federal immigration policies, she said. 'There is very little evidence anything big is likely to happen soon,' said Cohn, who stressed she was speaking in her personal capacity and not reflecting her employer's
views.
Moreover, Cohn said, the proposal risks diverting National Guard resources that may be needed to respond to natural disasters or other emergencies.
The proposal envisions a rotation of service members from Army and Air Force National Guard units based in multiple states. Those include Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee, the documents say.
Advertisement
Carter Elliot, a spokesperson for Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, said governors and National Guard leaders are best suited to decide how to support law enforcement during emergencies. 'There is a well-established procedure that exists to request additional assistance during times of need,' Carter said, 'and the Trump administration is blatantly and dangerously ignoring that precedent.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Mayor Of Chicago Fired Back At Donald Trump Calling Him "Incompetent," And His Response Is Going Viral For Being The "Bar Of The Year"
The Mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, is going viral for his "brilliant" takedown of a reporter and Donald Trump, which people are calling the "bar of the year." Chicago — like other major cities across the nation — is preparing for a potential "federal takeover of policing" following Donald Trump's issuing of National Guard troops on the streets of Washington, D.C. in the name of fighting crime. Recent videos of FBI and DEA agents patrolling the streets of Georgetown — a D.C. neighborhood — wearing tactical gear have gone viral online. FNTV / Twitter: @ScooterCasterNY Related: "If we need to, we're going to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster," Trump said in a recent press conference. "We have a mayor there that's totally incompetent. He's an incompetent man." It's important to note that, according to FBI statistics, violent crime in Chicago is down. Well, the mayor of Chicago was repeatedly asked by a reporter to respond to Trump calling him "incompetent," and his response is going super-viral. "What do you say to Donald Trump? How did you feel when Donald Trump called you 'incompetent?' Please answer that question if you will," a reporter asked from the crowd. Related: "OK. Fine. Since you are begging," Johnson replied to the reporter. The reporter then tried to interrupt, but Johnson continued. "So let me just answer that. I do appreciate you begging," he repeated. "So, I will just say it like this, that the President has always been intimidated by the intellectual prowess of Black men." Related: "And so, of course, he would speak in those petite and puerile terms, because he's small." The clip of the interaction has received over 1.5 million views on TikTok and thousands of comments. People are absolutely obsessed with Johnson's quick-witted response, with many applauding the way he addressed the eager reporter. ...Others called Johnson's comments on the President the "bar of the year." Related: "Using vocabulary that he won't even understand is damn poetic," one person wrote. "*MAGA furiously googles petite and puerile,*" another person joked. And this person praised Black politicians who have clapped back at Trump. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Los Angeles Times
14 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Putin praises Trump's efforts to end Ukraine war ahead of Friday summit in Alaska
LONDON — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday praised President Trump's efforts to end the war in Ukraine, more than three years after Moscow launched its invasion, as the two leaders prepared for a pivotal U.S.–Russia summit Friday in Alaska. Following a meeting Thursday with top government officials on the summit, Putin said in a short video released by the Kremlin that the Trump administration was making 'quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities' and to 'reach agreements that are of interest to all parties involved.' Putin also suggested that 'long-term conditions of peace between our countries, and in Europe, and in the world as a whole,' could be reached under an agreement with the U.S. on nuclear arms control. In Washington, Trump said there was a 25% chance that the summit would fail, but he also floated the idea that, if the meeting succeeds, he could bring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Alaska for a subsequent, three-way meeting. In a radio interview with Fox News, Trump also said he might be willing to stay in Alaska longer, depending on what happens with Putin. Meanwhile, Zelensky and other European leaders worked to ensure their interests are taken into account when Trump and Putin meet in Anchorage. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer welcomed Zelensky to London on Thursday in a show of British support for Ukraine a day before the critical Trump-Putin meeting. The two embraced warmly outside Starmer's offices at 10 Downing Street without making any comments, and Zelensky departed about an hour later. Zelensky's trip to the British capital came a day after he took part in virtual meetings from Berlin with Trump and the leaders of several European countries. Those leaders said that Trump had assured them that he would make a priority of trying to achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine when he meets with Putin. Speaking after the meetings to reporters, Trump warned of 'very severe consequences' for Russia if Putin doesn't agree to stop the war against Ukraine after Friday's meeting. While some European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, praised Wednesday's video conference with Trump as constructive, uncertainty remained over how the U.S. leader — whose rhetoric toward both Zelensky and Putin has evolved dramatically since retaking office this year — would conduct negotiations in the absence of any other interested parties. Both Zelensky and the Europeans have worried that the bilateral U.S.-Russia summit would leave them and their interests sidelined, and that any conclusions could favor Moscow and leave Ukraine and Europe's future security in jeopardy. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov tamped down expectations for any breakthroughs from the Friday summit, saying there were no plans to sign documents and that it would be a 'big mistake' to predict the results of the negotiations, according to Russian news outlet Interfax. The Kremlin on Thursday said the meeting between Trump and Putin would begin at 11:30 a.m. local time. Putin's foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, told reporters that Trump and Putin will first sit down for a one-on-one meeting followed by a meeting between the two delegations. Then talks will continue over 'a working breakfast.' A joint news conference will follow. Trump contradicted the Kremlin, saying that no decisions have been made about holding a news conference with Putin. The uncertainty reflects just how much about the summit, including its schedule, remains unsettled. Starmer said Wednesday that the Alaska summit could be a path to a ceasefire in Ukraine, but he also alluded to European concerns that Trump may strike a deal that forces Ukraine to cede territory to Russia. He warned that Western allies must be prepared to step up pressure on Russia if necessary. During a call Wednesday among leaders of countries involved in the 'coalition of the willing' — those who are prepared to help police any future peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv — Starmer stressed that any ceasefire deal must protect the 'territorial integrity' of Ukraine. 'International borders cannot be, and must not be changed by force,'' he said. Kyiv has long insisted that safeguards against future Russian attacks provided by its Western allies would be a precondition for achieving a durable end to the fighting. Yet many Western governments have been hesitant to commit military personnel. Countries in the coalition, which includes France and the U.K., have been trying for months to secure U.S. security backing, should it be required. Following Wednesday's virtual meetings, Macron said Trump told the assembled leaders that while NATO must not be part of future security guarantees, 'the United States and all the parties involved should take part.' 'It's a very important clarification that we have received,' Macron said. Trump did not reference any U.S. security commitments during his comments to reporters on Wednesday. With another high-level meeting on their country's future on the horizon, some Ukrainians expressed skepticism about the summit's prospects. Oleksandra Kozlova, 39, who works at a digital agency in Kyiv, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that she believes Ukrainians 'have already lost hope' that meaningful progress can be made toward ending the war. 'I don't think this round will be decisive,' she said. 'There have already been enough meetings and negotiations promising us, ordinary people, that something will be resolved, that things will get better, that the war will end. Unfortunately, this has not happened, so personally I don't see any changes coming.' Anton Vyshniak, a car salesman in Kyiv, said Ukraine's priority now should be saving the lives of its military service members, even at the expense of territorial concessions. 'At the moment, the most important thing is to preserve the lives of male and female military personnel. After all, there are not many human resources left,' he said. 'Borders are borders, but human lives are priceless.' Zelensky said Thursday that Ukraine had secured the release of 84 people from Russian captivity, including both soldiers and civilians. Those freed included people held by Russia since 2014, 2016 and 2017, as well as soldiers who had defended the now Russian-occupied Ukrainian city of Mariupol, Zelensky wrote on Telegram. The Russian Defense Ministry said Thursday that it too had received 84 soldiers as part of a prisoner exchange. In other developments, Russian strikes in Ukraine's Sumy region overnight Wednesday resulted in numerous injuries, Ukrainian regional officials said. A missile strike on a village in the Seredyna-Budska community wounded a 7-year-old girl and a 27-year-old man, according to regional governor Oleh Hryhorov. The girl was hospitalized in stable condition. In Russia, a Ukrainian drone attack damaged several apartment buildings in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don, near the border with Ukraine, where 13 civilians were wounded, according to acting governor of the region, Yuri Slyusar. Two of the wounded were hospitalized in serious condition, Slyusar said. Pylas and Spike write for the Associated Press. Spike reported from Budapest, Hungary. AP writers Lorne Cook in Brussels; Hanna Arhirova in Kyiv, Ukraine; Katie Marie Davies in Manchester, England; Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia, and Will Weissert in Washington contributed to this report.
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands
Congress has been rightly criticized for not pushing back sooner against executive branch encroachments on first branch constitutional prerogatives. Congress's relative somnolence is understandable though not wholly excusable. The silence on the Hill has been due in large part to the unilateral party control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. There is a certain grace period observed at the outset of a new administration while it gets its ducks in a row on policy and legislative priorities. Missteps and overreach inevitably occur and usually are met by majority party tolerance and inaction on the Hill. This Congress has followed the norm and oversight was overlooked except by the lone voices of protest on the minority party side of the aisle. Last month we witnessed the first cracks in the stone dam. It occurred on July 22 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. There, in the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement chaired by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), ranking member Summer Lee (D-Pa.) offered a motion to subpoena the Justice Department for the complete files of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in prison in 2019. The motion surprisingly carried on an 8-to-2 vote with three Republican members joining all Democrats to adopt the motion. Two of the subcommittee's Republicans, including Chairman Higgins, voted against the motion. The subcommittee subsequently adopted by voice vote a motion offered by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to subpoena the deposition testimony of a host of former government officials from both parties, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, six former attorneys general and two former FBI directors. One of the subpoenaed former officials, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, was asked on ' Meet the Press ' last Sunday whether he would comply with the subpoena. He wouldn't commit, explaining that conversations were ongoing to determine exactly what information the committee wanted. Program moderator Kristen Welker pressed him, noting that he was the first attorney general in history ever to be held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for his refusal to testify on 'Operation Fast and Furious,' tracking illegal gun sales. 'Do you have any regrets about that now,' and, 'will that be informing your decision now?' Holder explained that the information sought in that instance was 'confidential' internal executive branch communications and, presumably privileged (though only the president can invoke executive privilege). The White House and Justice Department did not attempt to prosecute Holder for criminal contempt of Congress in 2012. Whether the other subpoenaed former attorneys general and FBI directors will take their lead from Holder's decision this time will be interesting to watch. What makes the Epstein files disclosure demand especially unique today is President Trump's apparent flip-flop on the issue of disclosure from his previous use of it as one of the major issues on which he campaigned. It was a symbol of bringing down the ruling elites and draining the Washington swamp. That commitment has waned. As pressure grew, the president belatedly directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek release of sealed grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. That request was denied by a Florida judge. Meanwhile, the president has put out the word that it's 'time to move on.' The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927 held that Congress has an inherent right to compel testimony and conduct oversight as part of its constitutional lawmaking functions. The case was an offshoot of the Teapot Dome oil leasing scandal of the early 1920s. In that instance, a Senate select committee was inquiring into why former Attorney General Harry Daughety did not investigate the matter when it first broke. It had subpoenaed Mally Daugherty, the attorney general's brother and president of a bank at the heart of the scandal. When Mally refused to comply with the subpoena he was cited for contempt of Congress and found guilty. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld Mally's conviction. That 1927 decision did not turn off the spigot and witnesses today are still challenging subpoenas and inviting contempt citations. Whether a contempt citation is prosecuted is solely at the discretion of the Justice Department. The failure by the Justice Department to prosecute Holder's contempt of Congress citation in 2012 could well be a precursor to another prolonged battle of the branches. This time Congress could potentially wind-up with a sawed-off limb. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).
