The head of U.S. Northern Command on Thursday contradicted President Trump’s assertion that an “invasion [from] within” or an “enemy within” justifies the commander in chief’s National Guard deployments to American cities.
“I do not have any indications of an enemy within,” Gen. Gregory Guillot told Senate Armed Services Committee lawmakers when asked about Trump’s comments. “We maintain readiness to execute the orders to defend the homeland in many ways, but I have not been tasked in that way.”
Trump in late September declared that “an enemy within” was reason to deploy guard members in the United States. He also said the military “should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military,” referring to Democratic-run cities.
“This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control,” Trump told generals gathered Sept. 30 at Quantico, Va. “It won’t get out of control once you’re involved at all.”
Guillot’s remarks, at the top of a hearing on Trump’s guard deployment to several U.S. cities, underlined a point of contention between Republican and Democratic lawmakers, with the former arguing that the guard was needed to fight lawlessness as local officials had not done their job in keeping the public safe. Democrats, however, said the deployments were an abuse of military power that violated state rights.
“In recent years, violent crime, rioting, drug trafficking, and heinous gang activity have steadily escalated,” said the panel’s chair, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).
He called the deployments to several U.S. cities, including Los Angeles; Chicago; Washington, D.C.; Portland; and Memphis “not only appropriate, but essential.”
Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), meanwhile, said the deployments “would not be necessary [if] state and local officials were helping get criminal illegal aliens and violent repeat offenders off the streets.”
“The problem had metastasized, and President Trump needed to step in,” Budd said.
But Democrats on the panel questioned the legality of sending troops to American cities over the objections of state and local officials.
“The decisionmakers, and the words coming out of the mouth of the commander in chief — using our cities as ‘training grounds’ … going after ‘the enemy within’ — does not give us confidence that this president is going to always use the military in an apolitical way that’s exclusively meant on protecting the United States,” said Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.).
In one exchange, Slotkin asked the Pentagon’s No. 2 lawyer, Charles Young, whether he would approve an order by Trump to place troops at polling locations in next year’s midterm election and whether that would be legal.
The idea “sends a shiver down the spine of every American, and should whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican,” Slotkin said.
Young said that was “a hypothetical situation” and that there are federal laws that prevent the stationing of troops at polling locations, but he added that the president has the authority to decide whether there is an emergency that requires a National Guard response.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a combat veteran who served in the Illinois National Guard, pointed out that guard members have traditionally been involved in responding to natural disasters such as hurricanes and flooding, not assisting immigration agents in detaining individuals.
“Trump is forcing [service members] to make a horrible choice: Uphold their loyalty to the Constitution and protect peaceful protesters, or execute orders from the president,” Duckworth said.
“Our troops could be dragged into court and would be on their own to plead their case to a jury, all because their commander in chief put them in an unprecedented situation that they don’t regularly train for,” she added.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Young about reports that the Trump administration had dismissed military lawyers who raised concerns about deploying the National Guard to American cities and striking alleged drug boats off the coast of Venezuela, which he denied.
“Leadership is very attentive” to the concerns of military lawyers when they’re raised, Young said.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) referred to comments made by former Defense Secretary Mark Esper — in interviews and his book — in which he said Trump asked about troops being able to shoot protesters during civil unrest in 2020.
“The president at one point said that protesters should be shot in the street, is that a legal order?” she asked.
Young said he was unaware of Trump’s previous comments and that “orders to that effect would depend on the circumstances.”
Senators also took the hearing — the first of its kind in laying out the administration’s reasoning for using troops on American soil — to offer their condolences in the shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members Nov. 26 in Washington, D.C. Spc. Sarah Beckstrom died a day later while Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe is still hospitalized but improving, according to his family.
The hearing came a day after a federal judge in California ruled that the administration must halt the deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles and return control of the troops to the governor. The ruling issued Trump a legal setback in his bid to send troops to mostly Democrat-run cities in support of federal law enforcement. The president ordered more than 4,000 troops to the city in June amid protests over immigration raids that have largely stopped.
The judge put the decision on hold until Monday, with the White House declaring that it plans to appeal.
Trump has also sought to send guard members to Chicago, Portland and Memphis, deployments that have been blocked or limited by judges.