The looming Crisis: Can the Military Resist a Politicized Commander in Chief?
A risky moment has arrived for American democracy, as the lines between the military adn partisan politics blur under the current governance. The nation now faces what one expert calls the “greatest crisis of American civil-military relations in modern history,” with the potential for a constitutional breakdown if the armed forces are compelled to act against the law or the will of the American people.
To capture a democratic nation, authoritarians must control the intelligence agencies, the justice system, and the military. According to analysis of recent events, President Trump and his allies have made significant strides in seizing control of the first two, leaving the military as the last remaining bulwark against unchecked power. While the U.S. armed forces are currently led by officers committed to the Constitution,that allegiance is increasingly threatened.
The current administration, alongside Secretary of Physical Training Pete Hegseth, is actively attempting to transform the military into a tool for personal and partisan gain. This represents a stark departure from the long-held American tradition of military neutrality. While the president previously tested these boundaries during his first term, he was often restrained by figures like James Mattis, John Kelly, and Mark Milley. Now, those checks have been removed, replaced by a Cabinet of loyalists who prioritize obedience over counsel.
The president’s rhetoric and actions demonstrate a clear intent to leverage military power for domestic control.He has labeled American cities as “war zones” and political opponents as “the enemy from within,” signaling a willingness to deploy force against the American populace. This has already manifested in deployments to cities like Portland, Oregon, blocked by a judge who asserted, “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” However, the White House’s response, particularly through aide Stephen Miller, suggests a disregard for judicial rulings and a willingness to pursue increasingly authoritarian measures.
The administration has also issued orders authorizing military action against “narco-terrorists,” resulting in the destruction of vessels and loss of life without due process or legal justification.Reports indicate that some military commanders are questioning the legality of these actions, but their inquiries are hampered by the dismissal of top military lawyers. This creates a perilous situation where service members may be forced to carry out illegal orders under the threat of retribution.
The situation is further intricate by the Supreme Court’s recent grant of what some describe as “monarchical immunity” to the president. This effectively removes a potential legal barrier to unchecked executive power, raising the specter of orders issued with the explicit promise of protection from consequences – a promise already extended to those involved in the January 6th insurrection.
The onus now falls on senior military leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, to proactively inform the president that they will not comply with unlawful orders targeting American citizens or disrupting the political process. A former professor at the Naval War College, who lectured extensively on civil-military relations, recalls a time when the strength of this system was a model for other nations, even being presented to Soviet officers as a path toward disentangling their military from political control. That faith is now severely tested.
The challenge is not merely legal, but moral. As one Air Force General,John Hyten,stated in 2017,an officer presented with an illegal order should respond,”Mr. President, that’s illegal.” Though, the current political climate, coupled with the president’s willingness to reward loyalty above all else, makes such a response increasingly risky. The officer who ultimately carries out an unlawful order, even after repeated refusals from others, would inflict lasting damage on the armed forces and the Constitution.
ultimately, the duty extends beyond the military. Congress has so far failed to provide meaningful restraint, and it is incumbent upon citizens to demonstrate unwavering support for those in uniform who uphold their oath to the Constitution, even in the face of immense pressure. The future of American democracy may well depend on it.
