And the Mask Drops Further

By Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson

_{Mr. Simon held senior positions in the State Department and at the National Security Council. Mr. Stevenson served on the National Security Council staff during the Obama administration.}

By ordering 800 National Guard troops to Washington, on the pretext of an illusory crime wave, President Trump has further dragged the U.S. military into domestic law enforcement, in a move credibly perceived as an ominous “test case.” This continues what the administration started in California in June as part of the its deportation efforts.

Unfortunately, though we (and others) had hoped that the military would only respond to calls to action in American cities and states kicking and screaming, we no longer expect resistance from that institution. Once, perhaps, traditionalist officers might have leaned on protocol and refused to heed a lawless order, taking inspiration from the generals — Mark Milley and James Mattis — who resisted the uprooting of established military standards in the first Trump term.

But today, general officers no longer seem to see themselves as guardians of the constitutional order.

It now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump’s misuse of the nation’s military capabilities. Recent changes to the terms of the military’s employment by the Pentagon and its members’ incentives to career advancement will ultimately overcome any constitutional and moral qualms about their conduct.

Democratic civilian control and the apolitical professionalism of military officers have long been bulwarks against authoritarianism. This framework proved stable through the 20th century, even when tested by the Vietnam War, in significant part because American presidents and their civilian advisers could be trusted not to imperil the political integrity of the Republic.

Mr. Trump, however, has challenged this civil-military calculus. Since the military resisted his efforts to use active-duty personnel against Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, liberals have put their faith in the military as a last line of defense against a rogue executive branch.

But Mr. Trump and his allies have incentivized loyalty over legality and professional competence in administering military promotions. Mr. Trump has dismissed top military personnel without cause and promoted supporters (like former National Guard three-star Gen. Dan Caine) to leadership positions. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the military’s top Judge Advocates General, even though Pentagon lawyers see their job as facilitating policy objectives, not impeding them.

Furthermore, Mr. Trump has insidiously militarized domestic law enforcement by bureaucratic means. In July, the Pentagon re-designated a change of duty status of military personnel from Title 10 to Title 32 to facilitate their “direct interaction with individuals in ICE custody.” And ICE may now utilize the National Guard in 20 states for “alien processing.”

There are structural as well as ad hoc components to Mr. Trump’s mobilization. He is effectively fusing Northern Command, or Northcom, and the Department of Homeland Security into a cooperative internal security body. Both were established after the Sept. 11 attacks to secure U.S. territory against external terrorist threats.

Broader military culture favors the administration’s position. History shows that reinforced by the principle of civilian control, military officers will generally adapt to new missions even if they depart from tried-and-true practices. From World War II to the war on terror, new missions have required pragmatic go-getters, and the system has ensured their promotion over peers who remain dedicated to outdated ways. A truly disturbing precedent was the Army’s internment of Japanese Americans in 1942, carried out by officers of the Western Defense Command, a wartime precursor of the now peacetime Northcom. These officers were well aware that there was no serious security rationale to justify corralling these Americans into camps.

If the highest-ranked officers taking their cue from the White House decide that military operations on American soil are necessary, career officers will get the message. Some may entertain and even express reservations about employing American forces for domestic law enforcement, but few would act on them.

This is what we are seeing now. Top officers have registered no public objection to the dismissals of certain officers or the elevation of others whose main qualification appears to be loyalty to the president. Nor have they appeared to meaningfully question the dispatch of the Marines to California, Florida and elsewhere or of the National Guard to Washington.

In the 1950s, the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington observed that American military officers had evolved into a disciplined, technically competent, conservative group removed from the maelstrom of American politics.

But in the context of domestic theaters, the military cannot be a politically neutral tool. The Marines in Los Angeles and National Guard troops in Washington will not be wearing blue helmets and thinking of themselves as a United Nations peacekeeping force. The Trump administration has cast immigration and political forces “from within” as threats.

Northern Command is fundamentally no different than Central Command. Its commander’s job is to use U.S. air, ground and naval forces in combined operations to defeat enemies within their area of responsibility — even if those “enemies” are U.S. citizens.

Extending military operations piecemeal to internal law enforcement stealthily routinizes the fusion of executive and military power. Huge new funding for ICE under Mr. Trump’s big tax and spending law will substantially increase the scope and pace of the agency’s efforts nationwide and is likely to prompt commensurately greater military support. The fact that some California National Guard troops are reportedly disaffected with the ICE support mission they were given may well persuade the Trump administration to move more regular, active-duty troops into American cities.

The danger of escalation is real. Soldiers and Marines are trained for combat, not constabulary duty and riot control. Expecting military personnel to shift seamlessly from destroying an enemy on the battlefield to law enforcement is asking for trouble. And the deployment of troops to urban areas may provoke clashes with citizens who may be motivated to pick up a gun. Once shots are fired at military personnel, no matter where the shots come from, the administration will have the pretext it requires to tighten its grip using instruments of state control. This might sound far-fetched, but it can spin out of control.

It may be left to the Supreme Court to enforce constitutional discipline on the U.S. armed forces. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California’s lawsuit challenging Mr. Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops is working its way through the federal judicial system. The District Court initially ruled in California’s favor, but the Court of Appeals quickly ruled for the federal government.

But the Supreme Court, which has shown scant enthusiasm for curbing presidential power, could just as easily rule for the Trump administration. The military would be unlikely to challenge the president, and his power would become that much more entrenched. The last best hope may be a broadly applicable unanimous decision upholding the District Court’s ruling that even Mr. Trump would feel compelled to respect.