Here’s a thought experiment. What would happen if we put thousands of heavily armed soldiers into the streets of major American cities to enforce laws and deal with civil unrest, even though the troops had no significant training in either regard? And what would happen if citizens held mass demonstrations against this affront to their constitutional rights of speech and assembly, despite the protesters having little or no training in nonviolent resistance?
We know the answer because it happened at Kent State University in 1970.
Here is another scenario. What would happen if armed provocateurs showed up in this volatile mix, intending to trigger a second civil war in America? We know the answer. We saw an example on Jan. 6, 2021, when Proud Boys and several other extremist groups provoked violence during a riot at the Capitol.
Today, President Trump is engaged in his own experiment — a dangerous performative political stunt in which he’s federalized the National Guard and deployed regular U.S. troops to cities run by Democrats.
How do we know it’s performative? Because he’s threatening to invade only blue states and cities. His law-and-order excuse is implausible. Few Americans have shown more contempt for law and order than the four-times indicted, twice impeached, 34-times convicted president — the first felon to occupy the White House.
A law-and-order president would not have granted sweeping clemency to nearly 1,600 people charged with, convicted of, or pleading guilty to participating in the Jan. 6 riot. A president committed to law and order would not egregiously violate the nation’s statutes and the Constitution.
Sadly, we have come to expect such behavior from Trump. He is the thug he accuses others of being. The real disappointment at this moment is the U.S. military’s capitulation to Trump’s latest stunt.
Prior to last year’s election, Trump made no secret of his intentions. He has threatened to deploy the military against civilians — a decision generally prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 — since at least March 2023, suggesting he would use federal troops in urban “crime dens.”
“You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in (but) the next time, I’m not waiting,” Trump said during a rally in Iowa. Before last year’s election, Trump told Time magazine he endorsed using the military and building a migrant detention camp to remove more than 11 million people from the country.
During a speech on June 1, 2020, Trump urged governors to deploy the National Guard to “dominate the streets” against people protesting the murder of George Floyd. He threatened to deploy the military if governors didn’t act.
Meanwhile, protestors gathered in the park across the street from the White House to protest the Floyd murder. Police used rubber bullets and tear gas to clear the park. Then, Trump and a coterie of administration officials strode into the park for a photo op of Trump holding a Bible. They were joined by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, dressed in battle fatigues. But Milley realized he was being used as a political prop and left the event.
A cursory investigation concluded a year later that the police did not clear the park specifically for Trump’s photo op, but it was widely condemned as a violation of the protesters’ constitutional right to assemble. Milley apologized publicly and profusely. He said his appearance in uniform “sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society. I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”
While addressing graduates at the National Defense University, Milley urged the future military officers to remain apolitical. Today’s military leaders should take his advice if they expect the armed services to maintain the public’s respect.
In 2024, Military.com conducted its own thought experiment about what would happen if Trump sent active-duty troops to “quash protests on American soil.”
“In speaking with more than a dozen Pentagon officials as well as outside experts,” the article said, “what emerged was a landscape where few concrete legal protections exist to prevent an abuse of power by a president, especially if that president chooses to lean on the Insurrection Act, a vaguely worded law originally passed in 1792.”
But, it continued, “uniformed commanders also have a specific obligation to reject an order that’s unlawful.” Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, soldiers are not obligated to obey unlawful orders. An international court made the same determination after World War II when it rejected the “Nuremberg defense,” the argument by Adolf Hitler’s officers that they were just following orders when committing war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Why is this important? Although Trump is in office, the U.S. military might be the last line of defense for protecting our democratic republic, since Congress and the courts have largely capitulated to his autocratic rule.
What happens if top military officers and next year’s voters don’t stand up to Trump? We can ask the nearly 6 million people, more than 70 percent of the world’s population, what their lives are like under authoritarian rule. America is on a slippery slope to join them.
William S. Becker is co-editor of and a contributor to “Democracy Unchained: How to Rebuild Government for the People,” and a contributor to Democracy in a Hotter Time.” He previously served as a senior official in the Wisconsin Department of Justice and is currently executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
