|
 |
When I started working on this piece, it was in the context of Trump‘s announced decision to bring the National Guard and the Marines into Los Angeles to quell protests against ICE. Use of the military for domestic law-enforcement purposes is severely restricted by law for a number of good reasons, not the least among them the damage that happens when we politicize the military. The military’s reputation gets tarnished if it is perceived as a political tool rather than a defense force that protects the United States. The public can easily lose confidence in the military if political neutrality is abandoned.
In early June, Trump spoke to the troops at Fort Bragg. There was reporting that the soldiers in the audience were “handpicked for a political point of view,” to hear the politically charged remarks Trump delivered. MAGA merchandise was sold on base. Military.com called it “blurring the long-standing and sacrosanct line between the military and partisan politics.”
Then, on July 7, the military swept through MacArthur Park in Los Angeles. Mayor Karen Bass posted video, writing that just minutes before this happened, “there were more than 20 kids playing — then, the MILITARY comes through.” She demanded that it end immediately, calling it “absolutely outrageous.” Tuesday, there was news that more than 2,000 military members who have remained in federal status in California despite the absence of even a hint of violent protests have finally been released, with no fanfare.
 |
Even though the administration seems to have backed down in California, at least for now, Trump is still intent on using the military as a political tool. There is the issue of expanded “border enforcement,” with the Trump administration turning to the Southern border and giving military troops arrest authority across an expanded border area, posting thousands of signs in New Mexico and West Texas, declaring a “restricted area by authority of the commander.”
As former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta wrote recently, the military’s loyalty has to be to the Constitution, not the president. Our troops should not become part of a cult of personality for a president. Trump is trying to replace the rule of law with the rule of Trump, and when it comes to the military, that is fraught with a lot of danger.
As all of this is going on, I’ve had the opportunity to discuss the situation with a number of people who have served in different roles in the military to see, from their perspective, how important it is for the military to remain untainted by politics. During a week that is being consumed by the Jeffrey Epstein story, this is an issue it would be far too easy to overlook, but it’s among the most important ones being raised by the way this administration is conducting the nation’s business.
My good friend Jill Wine-Banks was the Army’s General Counsel during the Carter administration, the first woman to hold that position, and someone who dealt with issues about how the military should conduct itself throughout her tenure. She told me:
From the founding of our country, the Constitution and civilian and military leaders have understood the importance of keeping partisan politics out of the military. Trump doesn’t value that norm, as evidenced by his campaign-like speeches at West Point and Fort Bragg, even goading the audience to boo his partisan opponents. Worse was his appointing an unqualified weekend Fox host as SecDef and firing JAG officers, the Chief of Staff, and other Generals, and now his use, in violation of law and the wishes of the mayor and governor and the L.A. Police Chief, of armed Marines and his federalizing 4,000 members of the National Guard.
The audience reaction, especially at Fort Bragg, and the sight of uniformed armed forces on our streets, creates an impression that the military is siding with the president against his political foes. It is a grievous contradiction of a nonpartisan military, which I believe is essential, based on my Pentagon service as GC of the Army.
Why, you ask, should the military be nonpartisan? The answer seems obvious to me. The military must be nonpartisan because their oath is to the Constitution, not the Commander in Chief, and because nonpartisanship is essential to having an effective fighting force. If it is partisan, promotions and firings will be seen as based on political loyalty to the president, not merit. Junior soldiers will not respect leadership chosen that way. Trump’s speeches and firings and hirings make it look like merit is not important. Also, if politics are injected into the barracks of soldiers, sailors, aviators, and Marines, conflict will be inevitable and unit cohesion harmed. Finally, Trump’s use of the U.S. armed forces in crushing protests by the opponents of his policies makes the military look partisan and will reduce respect for the military among millions of Americans and hurt efforts to recruit and retain troops.
Former Alabama judge and retired Army Brigadier General Tom King Jr. cut straight to the chase: “Trump’s appearance yesterday was appalling. He is an embarrassment to George Washington and everything he taught us! It is compelling that despite leading The Continental Army as General Washington and then serving as President and Commander in Chief, Washington opposed a Standing Army and political parties.”
A friend who is both a former federal prosecutor and a former military legal officer explained the importance of avoiding politicization of the military like this: “Historically the U.S. has had a strong tradition of a nonpartisan military—a politically neutral military. That is vital because we never want the armed forces to be perceived as favoring one party over another party. And an even greater danger—and this is the reason for this strong tradition of political neutrality—is that the military could then be used as an armed force that tips the balance in favor of authoritarianism or a form of government by monarchy where the person at the head of the executive branch proclaims ‘I am the State—my will is sovereign’. The military take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
Alexander Vindman, who stood up to Trump during his first term in office, resulting in the first of his two impeachments, explains this issue from his viewpoint as a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, who also served as the Director for European Affairs on the United States National Security Council:
“I truly believe the political neutrality of our military is critical to what makes our country great.
The oath of service is not to a person or a party, but to the nation, to its laws and ideals. That distinction is essential in a democracy. Once blurred, it becomes dangerously easy to slide into authoritarianism.
The nation’s trust in our military is rooted in both excellence and the apolitical character of military service. When we politicize the armed forces, we risk turning a professional institution into a partisan instrument, undermining both its effectiveness and legitimacy. I fled an authoritarian regime as a child and came to America with nothing because my dad knew that here, the rule of law would protect us. History offers too many cautionary tales of what happens when the military is used to serve personal or political agendas rather than the Constitution.”
Naveed Shah, political director with commondefense.us and an Army veteran who served in Iraq, put a very personal touch on the issue: “As an Army veteran, politicization risks fracturing the trust the military has earned from the nation, undermines civilian control, and weakens the unit cohesion we rely on in the field, threatening the very democracy we swore to protect. We swore an oath to the Constitution, not to a political party or a candidate, and it’s important the public understands that. The military must stay apolitical to preserve the unity we fought for, maintain the professionalism that defines our service, and prevent abuses of power that could betray our oath to the Constitution.”
To understand the importance of this issue, it’s critical to hear the perspective of people who’ve served, people who took the oath and upheld it, people who are appalled that a commander-in-chief would try to use members of the military as political props, whether on the streets of Los Angeles or in the crowd for a speech at Fort Bragg. Internal 82nd Airborne Division communications reviewed by Military.com revealed that the administration used that event as a carefully curated political opportunity, orchestrated to ensure the president appeared universally popular. “If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don't want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” a note to troops said.
Janessa Goldbeck is the CEO of Vet Voice Foundation. She crystallized the comments of others I spoke with and also drove home the significance of the moment: “When you politicize the military, you erode the trust that keeps our democracy stable. Our armed forces don’t swear an oath to a president or a party, they swear an oath to the Constitution. Using troops as political props or tools of partisan enforcement isn’t just dangerous —it’s a betrayal of that oath. In a democracy, the military must serve all of the people, not the ambitions of any one leader. Once that line is crossed, it’s incredibly difficult to walk it back.”
Some events can’t be undone. It’s important that Trump has backtracked in L.A., but we must not take our eyes off of what’s happening with the military. Unprecedented events lead to unprecedented consequences. We can’t afford to look away.
Thank you for reading and for being part of a community of high-information voters. Paid subscriptions make it possible for me to devote the time and care this work requires—I’m grateful for your support.
We’re in this together,
Joyce