"An Enemy From Within": Trump's Plan to Turn the Military on American Citizens

Donald Trump called American cities "training grounds" for our troops. We need to take that threat seriously.

My experiences in public service, particularly those involving international diplomacy and the preservation of historical memory, have instilled in me a profound appreciation for the institutional guardrails that protect a democracy. Yesterday, we witnessed a direct challenge to one of the most vital of those institutions: the apolitical tradition of the United States military.

At a highly unusual global gathering of our most senior military officers, Donald Trump delivered a message that was as clear as it was alarming. His warning to the assembled generals and admirals—that if they disagreed with him, their “rank” and “future” would be in jeopardy—was not an off-the-cuff remark. It was a deliberate reframing of the relationship between a commander in chief and the armed forces.

The oath taken by every service member is to the Constitution, not to an individual. Trump’s ultimatum seeks to replace that sacred duty with a demand for personal allegiance. It signals that professional military judgment, born of experience and a commitment to national security, is now conditional upon its alignment with a political agenda. This, combined with his stated intention to fire commanders “on the spot” if he dislikes them, represents a fundamental subversion of the military as an independent institution.

This demand for personal loyalty is not an end in itself; it is a means to a deeply disturbing objective. The core of Trump’s address was a vision for deploying the U.S. military not against foreign adversaries, but as a domestic force against American citizens.

He spoke of a necessary confrontation with an “enemy from within” and proposed using our own cities as “training grounds” for troops. This rhetoric dangerously blurs the line between soldier and police officer, a distinction that has been a cornerstone of American liberty for over two centuries and is enshrined in federal law. It is a radical departure that treats dissent as insurgency and American communities as battlefields.

This agenda is being actively advanced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who delivered his own stark message to the military leadership: any general who cannot embrace this new direction should resign. His policy changes, which include relaxing protections against hazing and bullying, further threaten to erode the trust and good order essential to a healthy and effective fighting force.

The remainder of Trump’s speech was a disjointed monologue of personal grievances and demonstrable falsehoods, from his debunked claim of ending seven wars to a peculiar tangent on nuclear weapons. It was a performance that once again revealed a temperament ill-suited to the solemn responsibilities of command.

The disciplined, impassive silence of the officers in that room was a powerful counterpoint to the political theater they were forced to witness. Their professionalism was a quiet affirmation of the norms being violated. This is a moment that requires a sober understanding of the principles at stake. The tradition of a military that serves the nation, not a single leader, is foundational to our democracy. It is a principle that must be defended.