In a wide-ranging address to top military leaders, President Donald Trump framed rising domestic unrest and urban crime as an existential threat to the country — describing it as “an invasion from within” and repeatedly raising the possibility of using military forces and the National Guard inside American cities. In essence, Trump just declared war on American cities.
I cannot emphasize enough how important this moment is. The media has a duty to report honestly, not to downplay or normalize conduct that threatens our democracy and public trust. Silence or distortion only enables this behavior to spread unchecked, and I refuse to be complicit in that. If you believe in holding power accountable and want to support independent voices that will not waver, subscribe to my Substack today.
Subscribe
“America is under invasion from within. We’re under invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in any ways because they don’t wear uniforms. At least when they’re wearing a uniform you can take them out,” Trump told the assembled generals, according to the transcript of the remarks.
He went on to single out large, Democratic-run cities as targets for a federal crackdown, naming Washington, San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles as examples of places he deemed “very unsafe.” “We’re gonna straighten them out one by one. And this is gonna be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war too. It’s a war from within,” the president said.
Those passages mark a striking escalation in rhetoric about domestic security — language more commonly used to justify international military operations.
In the same forum, the president suggested some cities could be used as training grounds for U.S. forces: “I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military. National Guard, but our military. Because we’re going into Chicago very soon. That’s a big city with an incompetent governor. Stupid governor.” The remarks underscore a willingness to deploy federal forces to cities in ways that would almost certainly spark legal, political and constitutional debate.
Trump’s address mixed rhetorical flourishes with specific operational hints. He compared conditions in U.S. cities unfavorably to wartime zones overseas: “Washington DC was the most unsafe, most dangerous city in the US and to a large extent, beyond. You go to Afghanistan, they didn’t have anything like that,” he said. He also emphasized political grievances when addressing the military’s role and his views about the previous administration: “The past administration — they did not treat you with respect. They’re Democrats. They never do.”
In the same vein he made sweeping claims about electoral victories and demographic trends: “We won every swing state, we won the popular vote. We won everything. You have to take a look at the map. It’s almost entirely red except there’s a little blue line on each coast. And I think that’s gonna disappears too.” Those statements blend campaign themes with operational proposals, a fusion that raises questions about how the military will be asked to respond.
Using federal troops or the active-duty military for law enforcement inside the United States is tightly circumscribed by law. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits active-duty Army and Air Force personnel from performing domestic law-enforcement functions except where expressly authorized (for example, by the Insurrection Act or other statutory authority).
The National Guard — when under state control — is typically the first avenue for federal-state cooperation on security, but moving Guard units under federal control or deploying federal forces in a city over the objections of state or local officials would trigger both legal and political confrontations. Governors and mayors have already pushed back at recent threats to send troops to their cities.
Trump’s address was delivered to the senior echelon of the armed forces — the people who would be asked to execute any orders. That places generals and admirals in a difficult position: balancing loyalty to civilian leadership with legal obligations and the apolitical norms that govern U.S. armed services.
Some recent reporting indicates tension between the president’s rhetoric and military leaders’ public statements, with senior officers pushing back on characterizations that domestic unrest equates to a foreign-style invasion and stressing adherence to law and precedent.
How the Department of Defense responds to politically charged directives will be closely watched by Congress, the courts, and the public. Suffice to say, however, all eyes will be on the United States military as Trump declares war on American cities.