By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent analysis, it is argued that President Trump could potentially use the U.S. military to exert control over Americans. The author points to the deployment of troops in cities against the wishes of local authorities as evidence of acclimating the public to military presence. Concerns are raised due to the firing of top legal military officers, suggesting an intent to circumvent legal constraints. This is further compounded by Trump’s statements about combating drug cartels and the potential for extending this to domestic actions. Ultimately, the author suggests that while the military remains a significant obstacle, the potential for its politicization is concerning.
Read the original article here
Could President Trump really use the U.S. military against Americans? That’s the question, but based on the feedback, it seems the more pressing issue might be, “Is he already doing it?” Many express a strong sentiment that the question itself is out of date. The consensus is clear: this isn’t a hypothetical, it’s a present reality. The conversation immediately pivots from “could” to “is,” with numerous comments highlighting actions already taken.
The deployment of the National Guard is a recurring example. It’s mentioned as a way to test the boundaries of the Posse Comitatus Act, potentially allowing the military to be used in ways previously restricted. Then there is the claim that the administration is already using the National Guard to normalize their involvement. The use of ICE as a “secret police,” pushing the boundaries of what’s permissible, is raised as a key factor. It’s not just about direct military action, but also the blurring of lines and the leveraging of various agencies to achieve a particular outcome. The National Guard, in this context, becomes a test case for wider military application.
The concern isn’t solely focused on direct military confrontation, but also on the erosion of democratic norms. The narrative is that the administration is already purging individuals from high positions and has demonstrated a willingness to use law enforcement and military personnel in ways that go beyond their traditional roles. One of the underlying issues is the potential for partisan bias within the military. The fear expressed is that troops, especially those aligned with a particular ideology, may follow orders that go against the Constitution. This fear is amplified by the perceived inaction of other branches of government.
The question of accountability is another central point. Who would stop him? The sentiment is one of frustration with the perceived ineffectiveness of existing checks and balances. Congress, the courts, and even protest movements are depicted as failing to provide adequate resistance. There’s an undercurrent of resignation, a sense that the administration operates with impunity, knowing that any repercussions will be minimal or delayed.
The focus on state-level resistance is significant. A few states have shown a willingness to oppose federal overreach. This represents a potential safeguard, but it’s seen as a limited one, not a comprehensive solution. While it’s good that Oregon’s National Guard General said any of his troops deployed would be there to protect the protesters against ICE, and not the other way around, the general feeling is that there is not much in the way of opposition.
The core point is that the legal and constitutional limitations are being disregarded. Numerous comments state that the administration is already breaking the constitution and that is the concern.
The potential for those orders to cause psychological damage is emphasized. The fear is not only about the direct consequences of military action but also about the internal conflicts and moral dilemmas faced by those who are expected to carry them out. The modern era presents new challenges that weren’t present during the previous historical examples.
Finally, there’s a persistent warning to recognize the situation as it is and not to downplay the severity of the situation. This emphasizes that this is not a situation about “could he?” It’s about acknowledging the reality and recognizing the implications for the future.