In an extraordinary and highly controversial address to hundreds of top US military officials gathered at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, President Donald Trump directed the armed forces to prepare for expanded domestic operations targeting “crime, civil unrest, and the enemy within”—a directive that has ignited fierce condemnation from civil rights groups, veterans’ organizations, and legal experts.
Speaking for over 70 minutes in his trademark meandering style—shifting from Ukraine to stair-climbing to ship aesthetics—Trump doubled down on his vision of deploying active-duty troops in major American cities. He announced plans to extend military deployments beyond current operations in Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Memphis, and Portland to include San Francisco, Chicago, and New York, framing the move as part of a “war from within.”
“This is gonna be a big thing for the people in this room,” Trump declared. “It’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control.”
The remarks come amid a looming government shutdown, with Congress deadlocked as the midnight funding deadline approaches. Yet even as lawmakers scramble to avert a fiscal crisis, Trump’s speech has thrust the nation into a constitutional firestorm.
Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates warn that the president’s directive may violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement absent explicit congressional authorization. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a swift rebuke.
“The president told top military leaders he wants to use American cities as a ‘training ground’ for the military to go after ‘the enemy within’—in other words, those who disagree with him,” said Naureen Shah, director of government affairs for the ACLU’s equality division. “Military troops must not police us, let alone be used as a tool to suppress the President’s critics.”
Adding fuel to the controversy, newly appointed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used the same gathering to announce a sweeping cultural overhaul of the Pentagon. Declaring an end to “political correctness,” Hegseth vowed to loosen military discipline standards—including rolling back protections against hazing—and demanded ideological conformity from the officer corps.
“Generals that do not agree with this approach should leave the military,” Hegseth stated bluntly.
His remarks drew sharp criticism from veterans’ leaders. Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation and a former US Marine, called Hegseth’s vision “He-Man culture-war theatrics” that undermine real military readiness.
“It takes no strength to hit a recruit—it takes real strength to teach one,” Goldbeck told the Associated Press. “He has a cartoonish, 1980s comic-book idea of toughness he’s never outgrown.”
Trump’s speech also featured familiar political grievances, including repeated jabs at former President Joe Biden—whom he mocked for “falling down stairs”—and unsubstantiated claims about his foreign policy triumphs. He asserted he had single-handedly defused tensions between India and Pakistan and demanded a Nobel Peace Prize, while simultaneously boasting about bombing campaigns in Iran, Yemen, and the Caribbean.
On Ukraine, Trump expressed “disappointment” in Vladimir Putin for failing to end the war quickly, quipping, “Are you a paper tiger?” despite having held direct talks with the Russian leader in Alaska last month.
Meanwhile, his administration continues to push a Gaza peace plan, giving Hamas “three or four days” to accept terms or face a “very sad end”—a deadline met with skepticism by regional analysts.
As the midnight government shutdown deadline looms, Trump’s domestic militarization push has deepened national divisions and raised urgent questions about the separation of military and civilian authority in American democracy.
Legal challenges to the executive order authorizing domestic military deployments are already underway, with critics warning that the president’s actions risk normalizing the use of the armed forces against US citizens—a precedent many fear could erode constitutional safeguards for generations.