While on the campaign trail, former President Donald Trump has voiced concerns about significant threats facing the United States. He stated, “there is the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within. In my opinion, the enemy from within is more dangerous,” during an interview with Fox News on October 13, 2024.
Trump further elaborated that “the bigger problem lies with the people from within. There are some very bad individuals—sick people, radical left extremists. I believe this situation could be effectively managed, if necessary, by the National Guard, or, if absolutely required, by the military.”
During a CNN segment discussing Trump’s comments on potentially deploying military forces on U.S. soil, Mark Esper, who served as Secretary of Defense under Trump, noted that Americans “should take those words seriously,” especially considering Trump’s previous attempts to use military force in such contexts.
As military ethics professors, we are concerned that Trump’s past actions, alongside his recent statements regarding a potential second term, could place the military in a challenging position. A Supreme Court decision on July 1, 2024, which granted the president immunity for official actions—including as commander in chief—could exacerbate this already difficult scenario.
Response to Protests
During the summer of 2020, protests erupted across the nation in response to the death of George Floyd on May 25. Trump indicated he was considering deploying U.S. military forces to several cities to restore order. He had already dispatched some National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., in an effort to manage the unrest.
At that time, we contemplated the possibility of dissent within the military’s upper ranks, positing that resistance would be most effective if it emanated from high-ranking officials.
Indeed, many top generals, admirals, and cabinet advisors resisted Trump’s urges to use military force in the streets, countering suggestions to “beat the hell out” of demonstrators or to “crack their skulls”—or even to “just shoot them.”
Although Trump allegedly wished to send as many as 10,000 troops to D.C., significantly fewer were actually mobilized to the city. No federal military personnel were deployed against domestic protests that summer. Some National Guard troops were mobilized at the request of state governors, rather than through federal orders.
The Importance of Civilian Control
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Looking ahead to a potential second term, Trump has indicated a desire to appoint Cabinet and government officials who will carry out his orders without question, as opposed to those who might try to mitigate his more extreme impulses.
This means inquiries about dissent and disobedience are likely to fall more heavily on lower-ranking military personnel if Trump is re-elected, compared to his first term.
The U.S. military has traditionally upheld the principle of civilian control to prevent the potential for the military to be used for political ends—a concern rooted in the Revolutionary War experience. The founders structured the Constitution to ensure the president, an elected civilian, would serve as the commander in chief. Following World War II, Congress mandated that the secretary of defense must also be a civilian.
Consequently, in an era of increasing political division, military education programs are putting a greater emphasis on the oath service members take to protect the Constitution rather than allegiance to any individual.
As the Joint Chiefs of Staff reiterated after the January 6, 2021, insurrection and just before Joe Biden’s inauguration, military personnel have a duty to serve the interests of the nation, not any political leader or party.
Nonpartisanship May Be Viewed as Partisan
If military personnel are ordered to deploy within U.S. borders, they may face a dilemma where maintaining their tradition of political neutrality could be interpreted as a partisan stance.
While service members have a responsibility to follow orders from superiors, as military ethicists we recognize that the nature of the order itself is only one aspect of determining its moral justification.
The political underpinnings of an order are equally significant, as the military’s obligation to refrain from political involvement is intertwined with civilian leaders’ duty not to misuse the military for partisan interests.
If an elected official attempts to deploy the military for overtly partisan objectives, military personnel could face accusations of bias whether they choose to follow the orders or resist—despite their intent to uphold the military’s commitment to neutrality.
At the nation’s founding, leaders like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson expressed concerns about a military loyal to a single leader instead of a system of governance. James Madison feared soldiers could become tools of oppression for those in power, wielding their authority against citizens.
Trump has suggested that the National Guard or military could “easily manage” political demonstrators. He has promoted the idea of using “really fierce, tough” police strategies to combat crime. Additionally, he has voiced a desire for military officers to prioritize obedience to him over the Constitution.
It remains uncertain whether military personnel could follow such orders while maintaining their nonpartisan stance. Resisting directives for military deployments to U.S. cities for political purposes would align with the principle of civilian control, following the framers’ vision of a military that belongs to the people—not just the president.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Challenges for Service Members
A notable history exists of military figures who displayed the moral courage to refuse unethical commands. It was a junior officer who initially revealed the systematic torture of detainees during the global war on terror.
This precedent may be particularly relevant now, as there are ongoing discussions asserting that certain unethical orders might still have legal justifications.
Recently, some of Trump’s former military advisors have voiced apprehensions concerning the possible use of U.S. troops in American cities. However, various civilian advisors have already suggested being bolder in seeking legal avenues to deploy troops domestically. The Supreme Court’s ruling from July 1, 2024, providing the president with immunity for official actions—most likely including commands to military forces—only complicates the issue further.
No matter the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, significant protests over policies could arise—potentially even regarding election outcomes. If the military were to be called upon in response to such situations, personnel must reflect on whether they could ethically follow deployment orders. It’s essential for them to address these critical questions now.
We encourage our students to envision their responses in various ethical dilemmas, both real and hypothetical. In this case, one key ethical question is revealing itself for those currently serving:
“Would you follow an order from a president—a specific president issuing an order for a particular rationale—to deploy to a U.S. city? What implications would that carry for the nation, and what could it mean for American democracy if you chose not to?”
Many Americans express gratitude towards military personnel, often thanking them for their service and acknowledging them during public events. However, these individuals may need much more than mere appreciation in the near future.
The opinions expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not endorse any political candidate. They do not reflect the official stance of the U.S. Naval Academy, the Naval Postgraduate School, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, or any other entity in the U.S. government; the authors are not authorized to represent these entities officially.
This article incorporates previously published material from June 11, 2020.