[[link removed]]

VETERANS WARN THAT TRUMP LA RESPONSE COULD TURN MILITARY INTO
POLITICAL FORCE  
[[link removed]]


 

Ed Pilkington
June 9, 2025
The Guardian
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ “This is the politicisation of the armed forces,” said Maj Gen
Paul Eaton. “It casts the military in a terrible light – it’s
that man on horseback ... out in front of American citizens. We are
headed towards the invocation of the Insurrection Act.” _

National Guard troops deployed by Pres. Trump in Los Angeles, source:
screen grab

 

The Trump administration’s deployment of national guard troops to
Los Angeles to intervene in civilian protests in the face of
opposition from the Californian governor is a major escalation that
risks the politicisation of the US military, armed service veterans
are warning.

Former top military figures have told the Guardian that the decision
to put up to 2,000 troops under federal control and send them into the
streets of LA is a violation of the military’s commitment to keep
out of domestic politics in all but the most exceptional
circumstances. The last time a US president federalised the national
guard against the wishes of a state governor was in 1965, when Lyndon
Johnson deployed them to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama.

“This is the politicisation of the armed forces,” said Maj Gen
Paul Eaton. “It casts the military in a terrible light – it’s
that man on horseback, who really doesn’t want to be there, out in
front of American citizens.”

Eaton, who commanded the training of Iraqi troops during the invasion
of Iraq, predicted that the LA deployment would lead to the eventual
invocation of the Insurrection Act. The 1807 law empowers the
president to deploy the full US military
[[link removed]] against
insurrection or armed rebellion.

“We are headed towards the invocation of the Insurrection Act, which
will provide a legal basis for inappropriate activity,” he said.

The largely peaceful protests in LA against Trump’s deportation
efforts have entered their fourth day. National guard troops began
arriving in the city on Sunday, with authorisation to protect federal
personnel and buildings but not to engage in law enforcement
activities.

This deployment was made counter to what the governor wanted, so it
seems like a political forcing–A retired senior US army office

Trump’s move in the absence of a genuine civil emergency has sent
alarm through military circles, which have long prided themselves on
being above politics. “This deployment was made counter to what the
governor wanted, so it seems like a political forcing – a forced use
of the military by Trump because he can,” said a retired senior US
army officer who requested anonymity in order to preserve their
lifelong non-partisanship.

Trump’s memo
[[link removed]] federalising
the national guard for deployment in LA is written in sweeping terms,
in effect casting it as a nationwide mobilisation. It says that
regular military troops, as well as national guard forces, can be
employed by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to protect federal
functions anywhere in the country where protests are occurring.

Most troublingly, the memo also acts pre-emptively – an action never
seen before in the US – authorising the military to be deployed
against anticipated protests. It says that troops can be sent to
“locations where protest against functions are occurring, or are
likely to occur based on current threat assessments”.

On Sunday, Trump signaled that LA was just the start of a much wider
deployment. “We’re gonna have troops everywhere,” he said.

Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran who is CEO of Vet Voice
Foundation which advocates for veterans and military families
participating in American democracy, said that the executive order was
an invitation to Hegseth to “mobilise as many troops as he wants
anywhere within the US. That’s a massive escalation across the
country.”

Geoffrey DeWeese, a former US army judge advocate who is now a legal
director within the National Institute of Military Justice, expressed
concern about how the national guard would be used in LA. Under the
memo, they can act as protection for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents, which potentially means that troops could
accompany Ice in immigration deportation raids on homes and
businesses.

“Ice and the national guard are wearing camouflage, carrying
automatic weapons – so how do civilians differentiate them? And what
message does it send, when all you see are men and women in uniform,
with guns and helmets and goggles and maybe gas masks?”

The military mobilisation that is now unfolding is far from
unexpected. Military and constitutional experts who were convened by
the law and policy institute the Brennan Center last summer to wargame
what Trump might do in a second administration predicted precisely
[[link removed]] the
current train of events.

Trump himself made no attempt to disguise his intentions, repeatedly
telling
[[link removed]] his
supporters during last year’s election campaign that if re-elected
he would use the military against “the enemy within”.

Concerns about the deployment have been heightened by Trump’s
previous actions which already pointed towards a politicisation of the
armed services. In February he fired the chairman of the joint chiefs
of staff and several other top brass without giving just cause.

Retired lieutenant general Jeffrey Buchanan, the former commander of
the US Army North, said the dismissals also had a politicising effect.
“It will lead to Biden’s generals, and Trump’s generals – or
generals who are ‘my guys’ and generals who are ‘not my guys’.
That erodes confidence in the military, because the people will think
that the military are now politicians.”

Buchanan added: “The military’s ultimate loyalty is to our
constitution, not to a particular leader. We’ve had plenty of
tensions between military leaders and presidents in our history, but
we’ve always maintained this tradition.”

There are also worries about Trump’s upcoming military parade 
[[link removed]]to
be staged in Washington DC on 14 June to mark the 250th anniversary of
the US army. The date happens to coincide with the president’s 79th
birthday.

“Tanks are rolling into DC, $40m is about to be spent, in a giant
function to celebrate one man. That’s deeply unAmerican,” said Vet
Voice’s Goldbeck.

She added that while the military celebrated its birthdays, street
parades were avoided “because that is the action of a dictator. This
is all in line with how Trump views the military as a tool at his
personal disposal, not as a professional fighting force made up of men
and women whose oath is to the constitution.”

_Ed Pilkington is chief reporter for Guardian US. He is the author of
Beyond the Mother Country. Twitter @edpilkington
[[link removed]]. Click here
[[link removed]] for
Ed's public key_

_The Guardian [[link removed]] is globally renowned
for its coverage of politics, the environment, science, social
justice, sport and culture. Scroll less and understand more about the
subjects you care about with the Guardian's brilliant email
newsletters
[[link removed]],
free to your inbox._

* Insurrection Act
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* National Guard
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]