How Federalized Deployments into U.S. Cities Undermine the Military

For many former military leaders, veterans, and military families, the Trump administration’s recent federalization and deployment of National Guard troops raise serious concerns. Representing one of the most trusted institutions in our democracy, military voices are critical to understanding the consequences of the administration’s latest actions.

Retired senior military officers have shared their perspectives in court cases challenging President Trump’s deployments in California and Oregon, while also joining state leaders for public events and media appearances for several weeks as federalization and deployment issues evolved.

Seeing the need to elevate the important voices of veterans and military families, States United has worked closely with our partners at Vet Voice Foundation to ensure they’re heard in key court cases and in the public discourse.

Joanna Lydgate, president & CEO of States United, and Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of Vet Voice Foundation, recently sat down to talk about these important efforts. In their recorded conversation, they discussed aspects of the amicus briefs that they filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, along with how to continue to uplift the messages, voices, and perspectives of these essential members of American life.

What is clear from the amicus briefs and ongoing conversations with the military community is the importance that the armed forces of this nation must remain—and continue to be viewed by the American people as—nonpartisan. These deployments, justified by the president through heavily politicized language, not only threatens this delicate balance with the public, but also the strict legal frameworks that separate civilians from a heavy domestic military presence. It’s not just public and troop morale at risk, but also the rule of the law.

Traditionally, the U.S. military has avoided getting involved in domestic politics. Its apolitical nature is one of the main reasons it is deeply trusted by Americans. A nonpartisan military serves and defends all Americans, regardless of who they are or their political party. This allows democratic functions to proceed without fear of partisan military intervention.

Every branch of the military, including the U.S. Army, U.S Air Force, and U.S. Navy, stresses the importance of nonpartisanship. High-ranking former military leaders, including former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also emphasize that the military is best positioned to protect and defend the country by staying out of politics.

The recent deployments of federalized National Guard and Marines in highly politicized circumstances threaten to undermine the military’s nonpartisan reputation.

“[The] employment of military personnel in support of civilian law enforcement is an extremely delicate matter and one fraught with tremendous peril,” retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel wrote in Army Times in June 2020. “When not done thoughtfully, it endangers the apolitical reputation of the military.”

Recent domestic deployments have been politically charged. In social media posts, speeches, and press releases, the president frequently linked calls for domestic military engagement with attacks on his political opponents, combining partisan disagreement with militaristic threats.

Trump has federalized National Guard troops in states with Democratic governors and deployed troops into jurisdictions controlled by Democratic officials. (Elsewhere, Republican governors, including in Tennessee, have deployed the National Guard into their own cities with federal support.)

The president has, for example, referred to cities “run by the radical left Democrats” as “very unsafe places” and stated that “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

Military experts are deeply concerned about the political tone of the deployments. After the California deployment in June, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton observed that the deployment was “a politicization of the armed forces.”

Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran, added: “Among all that I spoke with, the feeling was that the Marines are being used as political pawns, and it strains the perception that Marines are apolitical.”

Military members did not sign up to police their own communities, nor do people want armed troops on their streets. Forcing members of the military to do so can put them in a tough position with their fellow Americans, heightening tensions. This departure from how federal and local law enforcement work together to protect public safety has the potential to cause significant harm to the military’s reputation and troop morale.

A politicized military could also impact the military’s ability to recruit and retain the best talent, regardless of political views. This sort of environment may cause potential recruits to feel they are being forced into actions for political reasons, or to feel their personal views are a hindrance to the success of the military.

Tensions between the public and the military can also increase when using the military to police civil disturbances. Less than a quarter of Americans think the president should be able to deploy the National Guard without a state governor’s consent. Some 70% say they disagree that Trump should be able to use the U.S. military to stop Americans from protesting. And only a small fraction of Americans think the National Guard is best suited to respond to crime.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Randy Manner has said that deploying the military domestically to police citizens “is the beginning of a divide between our military and our citizens, and that is absolutely detestable.”

Additionally, the unwarranted use of the military in response to civil disturbances, experts caution, threatens the morale of military troops and the trust of military by local communities. Domestic use of the military, when not strictly necessary, threatens to undermine the reputation and integrity of the U.S. military as a trusted, nonpartisan American institution.

The Constitution, federal law, and American values provide an extremely high bar for deploying the military in our communities. Now, it’s up to the courts to defend that bar.

It is the judiciary’s role to ensure that any order that federalizes or deploys the National Guard, or the regular military, falls within the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of a nonpoliticized military.

The high court has observed that the “military as such is insulated from both the reality and appearance of acting as a handmaiden for partisan political causes or candidates. Such a policy is wholly consistent with the American constitutional tradition of a politically neutral military establishment under civilian control. It is a policy that has been reflected in numerous laws and military regulations throughout our history.”

Concerns about troop morale, Americans’ trust in the military, recruitment efforts, as well as the law, should caution courts from deferring to the president on these politicized deployments.

• Newsom v. Trump amicus brief
• Oregon v. Trump amicus brief
• Backgrounder: National Guard Deployment Litigation

• Bloomberg (Opinion): National Guard Troops Didn’t Sign Up for This (Oct. 16, 2025)
• KQED: Retired General Sounds Alarm on Trump’s Troop Deployment (Oct. 9, 2025)
• Axios: Retired generals warn of dire consequences of Trump politicizing military (Sept. 9, 2025)
• USA Today: Trump using National Guard for deportation work could go into ‘uncharted territory’ (June 19, 2025)