I led National Guard and regular Army units. Using the military to intimidate Americans is 100% wrong
For over 35 years, I served our nation in both the regular Army and National Guard. I served as both a part-time citizen soldier and full-time Title 10 officer after being mobilized in September 2001. In my career, I've had the distinct honor to lead both active duty and National Guard organizations, as well as soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
I have also stood in Red Square in Moscow, Tiananmen Square in China and the edge of the DMZ in North Korea. I have seen how some countries focus significant portions of their military inside their own nations to implement domestic policies and maintain control.
Two weeks ago – in a series of actions that brought us a little closer to that reality – the president sent the National Guard to America's second-largest city over the objections of the state's governor. Almost immediately after, he ordered active-duty Marines to go to the city. And on June 14, we saw service members ride tanks and march in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the 250th Birthday of the U.S. Army.
These actions – as seen through my previous role as the No. 2 person in the National Guard Bureau – worry me greatly. I am concerned that the administration is transitioning the military's role from national defense to law enforcement. From protection to intimidation. This transition is a dramatic misuse of power and could lead to disastrous legal, operational and ethical outcomes.
First, by sending the military to police our own citizens, we lose a needed separation between the military and our civilian population.
The military is designed and trained to defend against external threats, not police its own citizens. The Posse Comitatus Act specifically limits the military's role in domestic law enforcement and, for good reason – to keep military operations separate from civilian policing. This separation is fundamental to who we are as freedom-loving Americans.
The U.S. military is the best trained in the world for its warfighting mission, but it is neither trained nor equipped for immigration enforcement, immigration detention or civilian arrests. This latest move only increases legal and ethical jeopardy for troops and further endangers the rights of the people of Los Angeles – all while risking the absolute worst.
Second, the administration's deployment of the military against protests undermines the readiness of our entire armed forces, pulling resources away from critical defense priorities.
National Guard units are composed of community members who signed up to serve their respective neighbors. They respond to hurricanes, flooding, forest fires and more. By sending or threatening to send National Guard units across the country simply for constitutionally enshrined protests, we risk moving these units away from what they are designed to act on.
The Trump administration didn't just send the National Guard. They sent active-duty Marines as well. Utilizing military assets to put down protests and assist immigration enforcement officers detracts from the military's core mission: national defense. There are real threats abroad, and with our military involved in 160 countries across the globe, we must ensure that we're prioritizing the time and money of the armed forces efficiently.
The Pentagon already publicly stated that this deployment will cost $134 million, and that's just the beginning. In fact, the unintended effects of this oversight are already clear: service members are sleeping on the floor at night.
Yes, these actions taken by the president in the last few weeks are logistically and legally dubious. But there's a bigger problem at hand. They were taken primarily to intimidate and suppress speech, as well as undermine a governor. By using the military in this way, the president is misusing his power, both tamping down on free speech and usurping states' rights.
The Trump administration didn't just send the National Guard. They sent active-duty Marines as well. Utilizing military assets to put down protests and assist immigration enforcement officers detracts from the military's core mission: national defense.
It doesn't matter if it's a blue state or a red state, an American president should not send in the military to suppress political opposition at home. By acting like this, the government risks breaking the trust between our military members and our communities.
Let's be crystal clear: those who commit violence must be held accountable. But at the same time, the right to peaceful demonstration and free speech must be protected. Nothing better demonstrates this point than the image of a U.S. senator being handcuffed and manhandled for voicing his opposition to the president's actions.
No matter what your views, we're proud to live in a country where people have constitutional rights – such as the rights to free speech and due process under law. Matter of fact: it's why many of us sign up to serve.
My own family is proud to have served to defend these exact rights. My grandfather served in the Navy in World War II, my father in the Army in Vietnam, and my son in the Air Force in Afghanistan, flying search and rescue missions. The president is taking actions that we and millions of other veterans have stood against, and it's abundantly clear that his attempts to use the military to intimidate Americans is wrong, and it must end.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
27 minutes ago
- Fast Company
WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure
The U.S. House of Representatives' Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Catherine Szpindor, informed congressional staffers this week that WhatsApp is now banned from government phones. The move came after the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity deemed the Meta-owned app to be 'high-risk to users'—a claim that WhatsApp quickly rebutted. But the CAO is correct. While WhatsApp is one of the more secure messaging apps out there, it does have some privacy and security risks. Users can mitigate some of these risks, but others are beyond their control. Here's why WhatsApp is now banned in the U.S. House of Representatives and how you can make the app more secure on your phone. What the Office of Cybersecurity said, exactly The news that the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity had announced a ban on WhatsApp this week came from Axios. On Tuesday, the publication published parts of an internal CAO memo it received, which was sent to congressional staffers on Monday, announcing that WhatsApp was now verboten on government phones. The memo stipulated that 'House staff are NOT allowed to download or keep the WhatsApp application on any House device, including any mobile, desktop, or web browser versions of its products.' It went on to add: 'If you have a WhatsApp application on your House-managed device, you will be contacted to remove it.' The reason? According to the memo, 'The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use.' The CAO didn't provide further details in the memo regarding the above risks. Still, it's easy to interpret some of the things that may have made the CAO leery about the continued use of WhatsApp by Congressional staffers. WhatsApp's transparency issue WhatsApp, like competing secure messaging apps including Apple's iMessages and Signal, is end-to-end encrypted, meaning that no parties other than the ones in the chat, even including Meta, can read the chat messages. But WhatsApp collects a lot more metadata from each chat than other secure messaging apps do, and it sends this info to Meta A chat's metadata includes information such as the identities of the chat participants, IP addresses, phone numbers, and the timestamps of messages. No one knows exactly what Meta does with this metadata. Still, it is shared with Meta's other platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. It is likely used to help the company build social graphs of users, leveraged for advertising purposes, and analyzed by the company to understand who is using their apps, and when and where. This opaqueness is likely some of the 'lack of transparency' risk that the CAO was referring to. As for the 'absence of stored data encryption,' the CAO may have been referring to the default method by which WhatsApp backs up a user's chats. While WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted, if a user backs up those chats to the cloud, the backup itself is not end-to-end encrypted by default. This means that if a bad actor gains access to a WhatsApp user's cloud backup, they could read all of that user's messages. It's no wonder the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity finds this worrying. WhatsApp also doesn't have other privacy and security features on by default, including the ability to lock the app behind biometrics and requiring two-step verification when a WhatsApp account is installed on another phone. If you don't work in the House of Representatives, you can still keep WhatsApp on your phone. But you might want to mitigate its privacy and security risks. Here's how. How to make WhatsApp more secure on your phone Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about WhatsApp's metadata problem. Meta designs WhatsApp so that the metadata of your chats is sent directly to the company. There's no way you can turn this data collection off. But you can make the app more secure on your phone by following some simple steps, including: End-to-end encrypt your WhatsApp backups: In WhatsApp, go to Settings>Chats>Chat Backup>End-to-End Encrypted Backup and turn this option on. Now your chat backups saved in the cloud will be end-to-end encrypted. Lock WhatsApp: You can set WhatsApp to refuse to open without further authentication by locking the app. This means that even if someone has access to your unlocked phone, they won't be able to open WhatsApp unless they know your phone's PIN, or have your face or fingerprint. To lock WhatsApp, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Privacy>App Lock and toggle the feature on. Enable two-step verification: If someone logs into your WhatsApp account on their phone, they'll be able to see your messages. That's why you should set up two-step verification for your account. This will require a PIN that you set to be entered whenever an attempt is made to log into your WhatsApp account on a new device. If the PIN isn't entered correctly, the new device won't have access to your account. To enable two-step verification, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Account>Two-Step Verification and toggle the feature on. Apps the CAO suggests using instead When reached for comment on the CAO's decision to ban WhatsApp, the organization's chief administrative officer, Catherine Szpindor, told Fast Company, 'Protecting the People's House is our topmost priority, and we are always monitoring and analyzing for potential cybersecurity risks that could endanger the data of House Members and staff. We routinely review the list of House-authorized apps and will amend the list as deemed appropriate.' In the past, the CAO has banned or imposed partial bans on various foreign apps, including those from ByteDance, such as TikTok. But the CAO has also previously announced bans or restrictions on apps made by American companies, including Microsoft Copilot and the free versions of ChatGPT. As for Meta, a company spokesperson told Fast Company that it disagrees with the CAO's characterization of WhatsApp 'in the strongest possible terms.' The spokesperson also asserted that, when it comes to end-to-end encryption, WhatsApp offers 'a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO's approved list that do not offer that protection.' In the Office of Cybersecurity's memo, the agency provided guidance on alternative secure messaging apps that House staffers could use now that WhatsApp had been banned. According to Axios, those apps include Apple's iMessage and FaceTime, Microsoft Teams, Wickr, and Signal.
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades
The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, will allow Mr. Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that already took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's trade deals are stalling out at the worst possible time
With just a week and a half remaining of a 90-day pause on President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, the White House is running out of time to negotiate its long-promised trade deals that could bring some certainty to an increasingly uneasy economy. But with just two trade frameworks inked and dozens to go before the July 9 deadline, that timeframe appears increasingly unlikely — just as America's economy might be taking a turn for the worse. For months, the Trump administration has said deals are imminent, working with 18 key partners to lower trade barriers while hundreds of other countries wait in line to get out from under the burden of higher tariffs. But the timeframe continues to shift. 'I've made all the deals,' Trump said in a Time interview in late April, saying trade negotiations with foreign partners were nearly complete. 'I've made 200 deals.' More than two weeks later, Trump acknowledged that hundreds or even dozens of deals aren't possible on such a short timeframe — a point he reiterated Friday at a press briefing at the White House. 'You know, we have 200 countries,' Trump said. 'We can't do that. So at a certain point, over the next week and a half or so, or maybe before, we're going to send out a letter. We talked to many of the countries, and we're just going to tell them what they have to pay to do business in the United States. And it's going to go very quickly.' That notion of establishing new tariffs for countries that can't or won't reach a deal with the United States has been floating around for over two months, but the timeline keeps getting pushed back. On April 23, Trump said his administration would 'set the tariff' for countries that fail to negotiate new terms in the following few weeks. On May 16, Trump said that 'at a certain point, over the next two to three weeks … we'll be telling people what they'll be paying to do business in the United States.' Meanwhile, the United States remains in active negotiations with its key trading partners. But those deals have been promised for months, too, with little to show for it. On June 11, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said a flood of deals was coming. 'You're going to see deal after deal, they're going to start coming next week and the week after and the week after. We've got them in the hopper,' he told CNBC. On Thursday, Lutnick told Bloomberg 10 deals would be announced imminently. But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also said Thursday that 'the deadline is not critical,' a point that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized to Fox Business on Friday: Bessent said he thinks trade negotiations could be 'wrapped up' by Labor Day, providing a more relaxed framework for inking deals than the previously prescribed July 9 deadline. Meanwhile, Trump made clear Friday that trade policy could continue to grow more aggressive. In a social media message Friday, he said that the United States was pulling out of trade talks with Canada because of its digital services tax and that the administration would set a new tariff for its northern neighbor within the next week. And Bessent told CNBC Friday that about 20 countries could return to their 'Liberation Day' tariff rate starting on July 9, while others would receive longer windows to negotiate. He didn't name the countries that would receive the higher levies, but some nations' tariffs were set as high as 50% before Trump hit pause. 'The idea that uncertainty will be resolved early this summer appears to be completely dead,' Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, told CNN. 'This means tariff aggression is not dead. That's probably not super surprising but some of us allowed ourselves moments of optimism.' The problem with the perpetually pushed-back tariff timetable is that the economy could really use some deals right about now. After several months of strong economic news but incredibly weak consumer sentiment, America is starting to see those trends reverse: The vibes are on the rebound, but evidence is mounting that the economy is getting worse. Consumer sentiment climbed 16% this month, the University of Michigan said in its latest survey released Friday. Although consumer sentiment remains weak, the stock market is at an all-time high, which could give Americans a confidence boost. But that's not translating into spending. Consumer spending unexpectedly fell in May for the first time since January, the Commerce Department reported Friday. In real terms, consumer spending has now fallen so far in 2025. Inflation is ticking higher, job growth is slowing and retail sales are sinking. That's a concern, because consumer spending makes up two-thirds of America's economy. 'Households are anxious about what tariff-induced price hikes will do to their spending power, while concerns about the robustness of the jobs market are on the rise,' said James Knightley, chief US economist for ING, in a note to clients Friday. 'Equity markets have recovered and are at all-time highs, but house prices nationally are starting to come under downward pressure.' Many mainstream economists argue that the low inflation of the spring that helped boost consumer sentiment represents a calm before the summer storm, when they expect prices to rise as companies finish selling off inventories of products they had brought to the United States before Trump imposed tariffs. Friday's inflation report showed that the changeover to higher-tariff goods may have already begun to happen. 'Higher prices from tariffs may be starting to work their way through the economy,' said Robert Ruggirello, chief investment officer at Brave Eagle Wealth Management. Although tax cuts from Trump's sweeping domestic policy agenda could help mitigate higher prices from tariffs, Trump's trade war continues to risk retaliation from American's key trading partners. Higher tariffs from foreign countries could slow the US economy, risking a recession. 'Trading partners taking retaliatory action could have a lasting impact on US output and, accordingly, public finances,' said Michel Nies, an economist at Citi. That's why trade deals are so urgent: America's economy remains strong, but cracks are forming. Tariffs are a big reason why. More delays will generate more uncertainty. And those good vibes could turn bad pretty quickly. CNN's Matt Egan contributed to this report.
