SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us military
Loyalty Over Law: Trump’s Ultimatum to the Military
Trump's Quantico speech nudged the military toward personal loyalty over constitutional duty, encouraging officers to view American citizens as potential adversaries.
Oct 02, 2025
At Quantico this week, US President Donald Trump addressed the nation’s top military leaders and delivered a statement that might have sounded like a joke: “If you do not like what I am saying, you can leave the room, of course there goes your rank and your future.”
Generals and admirals, mostly white men with a handful of women and people of color, laughed—some nervously. Yet beneath the levity lies a profound departure from established norms. Loyalty to the Constitution was implicitly optional; loyalty to him was emphasized as paramount. Obey, or be discarded. This was not overtly menacing, but the danger lay in the implications—a subtle drift toward personal allegiance rather than institutional fidelity.
The Framers anticipated precisely this. James Madison warned that “the means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” George Washington cautioned that “overgrown military establishments” threaten liberty. US officers swear an oath not to a person but to a document: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic… that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” Notably, the president is not mentioned. Trump’s remarks at Quantico nudged the military toward personal loyalty over constitutional duty.
He framed an “enemy within.” “America is under invasion from within… it’s more difficult because they do not wear uniforms,” he said, describing inner cities as “a big part of war,” and suggested US troops could use urban America as “training grounds.” “We are going to straighten out these cities one by one… you know, it’s a war from within… and this is going to be a big part of what many of you in this room are going to do. Controlling the physical security of our border is national security.” Cities like Chicago and Portland were singled out: “We are going into Chicago very soon. They have a stupid governor… They need the military desperately... look at Portland. It looks like a war zone. This looks like WWII. They do not have it under control. This place is a nightmare. They go after our ICE people.” The tone was casual, but the implications were stark: civilian populations could be reframed as adversaries, and the military’s domestic mission subtly redefined.
How far can this drift go before someone says, "No"? The answer will determine whether the United States maintains a professional, apolitical military loyal to the Constitution—or watches its military subtly repurposed for the ambitions of a single leader.
The speech meandered. Trump mocked former President Joe Biden’s autopen, disparaging the father of a fallen soldier, debated the type of paper for officer commissions, boasted about Africa and Gaza, and claimed he had “settled seven wars”—despite never serving in combat. Generals and admirals were asked to absorb these narratives alongside directives about fitness, grooming, and ideological conformity. One line crystallized the shift: “If it’s okay with you generals and admirals, if they spit, we hit.” Casual in tone, it nonetheless suggested the bending of rules of engagement to fit personal preference.
He framed merit as ideological conformity: “We went through political correctness… many people doing what you are doing were unfit… Kids with C averages were getting into the best colleges… Everything is based on merit now… we are not going to have someone take your positions for political reasons… this nation was built on merit… I give the Supreme Court so much credit for that decision… you can never be great with political correctness.” Merit became a tool for enforcing obedience, signaling that dissent could be equated with incompetence.
Trump’s rhetoric invoked martial bravado: “If we are as ruthless and relentless as our enemies, we will match anyone.” In context, this was less an immediate threat than a subtle call to normalize operational flexibility that blurs the line between foreign and domestic, combatant and civilian, obedience and principle.
History provides a cautionary parallel. Hitler’s 1934 Reichswehr oath: “I swear by God this holy oath, that I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler…” illustrates how personal loyalty can supplant institutional oath. Trump’s Quantico speech does not mirror Hitler, but it nudges in a similar structural direction: the implicit redefinition of allegiance.
Professionalism demands a different ethos. Civilian control presupposes accountability to law and Constitution, not to a single person. At Quantico, generals could have reaffirmed that principle by walking out. They did not.
The speech’s digressions reinforced this central pattern. Trump referenced George Soros, gangs from Venezuela, former President Barack Obama’s walk down Air Force One, black-and-white movies, battleships, tariffs, and even the Nobel Prize he thinks he deserves—bouncing from subject to subject, but always tethered to personal loyalty. Laughter punctuated moments of absurdity or partisanship, blurring the line between professional judgment and political theater.
The cost of the event is difficult to justify, particularly amid a government shutdown. On multiple occasions, Trump mocked political opponents, disparaged prior commanders, and indulged in self-aggrandizing boasts. The generals and admirals were spectators, asked to measure both competence and ideological alignment. It was, quite simply, a waste of their time and a waste of taxpayer money.
But make no mistake about it, Quantico serves as a warning not because of overt threats but because it demonstrates the slow erosion of institutional boundaries. Subtle, meandering, and sometimes humorous, the speech nonetheless nudged the military toward personal loyalty over constitutional duty, encouraging officers to view American citizens as potential adversaries. Civilian control of the military, once a safeguard against tyranny, risks inversion. For now, Trump does not command an army loyal only to him, but the vision is unambiguous: a force trained to see Americans as adversaries, guided not by law but by obedience to one man.
How far can this drift go before someone says, "No"? The answer will determine whether the United States maintains a professional, apolitical military loyal to the Constitution—or watches its military subtly repurposed for the ambitions of a single leader. At Quantico, the question was posed without overt force, but the implications could not be clearer: Obey, or lose everything.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As The Military Occupies Your Town, Give Them Flowers and a Note
The demonstrators of the 1960s understood that the soldiers faced off against him were not the enemy. Neither are the National Guard members patrolling your city on Trump's illegal orders.
Oct 01, 2025
During some of the large anti-war demonstrations during the 1960s, some of the protesters gave flowers to the troops faced off against them. In the 1967 March on the Pentagon it was the 503rd Military Police Battalion, and elsewhere the National Guard was deployed. An iconic photo from 1967 shows a young man placing a flower into a soldier's gun barrel during the protest. Let's bring that custom back when the US military occupies your town in 2025, but this time let's include a note along with the flower.
Allow me to explain.
The demonstrators of the 1960s understood that the soldiers faced off against him were not the enemy. Nearly all of the soldiers were young and patriotic and trying to do the right thing. Many of them were under economic hardship and wanted help paying for their education. The flower symbolized the protesters' belief that the soldiers were not their enemies, and they did not wish to be theirs. And in fact, as the almost entirely peaceful protests grew, many soldiers came to sympathize and began to actively oppose the war as well.
Now we have federalized Guard troops being called out by US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and Portland with other cities soon to follow. Chicago is likely next. The authority for this is said to be Title 10 of the US Code which says that the president may federalize the National Guard if the US "is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion... or the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."
The president's rhetoric seems aimed at inflaming and dividing. The "enemy from within," "full force," "thugs," "vermin," and much more.
Legitimate grounds for a US military or National Guard deployment do not exist. The claim that crime is spiraling out of control is false, and those pushing for the deployments know it. There is zero credible proof that crime is increasing. According to a recent FBI report (August, 2025) robbery, assault, rape, and murder all continued a decline that began post-Covid-19. We are not being invaded, there is no rebellion, and the laws are being enforced about as well as ever.
A second reason against deploying the military on our streets is that the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 forbids the use of US military forces within the country for active law enforcement except in exceptional circumstances such as insurrection, and explicitly approved by Congress. The military is forbidden from making arrests, conducting searches, issuing warrants, or interfering with local law enforcement. The law also applies to National Guard forces unless approved by state governors. No governors this year have made any requests for federalized National Guard troops.
And it is worth noting that Trump's military forays into cities are only being used in Democrat-run areas. High crime in red state cities is ignored. And the Trump administration refuses to realize the obvious danger of political violence and threats from MAGA and the American right which are much higher than those from the left, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and others. Antifa is officially (and improperly) designated as domestic terrorists while violent right-wing groups get a pass from the administration.
And the president's rhetoric seems aimed at inflaming and dividing. The "enemy from within," "full force," "thugs," "vermin," and much more. And there is hardly a peep of protest from the Republican Party.
So this time around, how about if we give the troops a note along with the flower? You could use wording such as this:
Dear US soldier,
Your service oath included a pledge to uphold the US constitution, and your training taught you to disobey illegal orders.The orders sending you here to (insert name of your city or town) are unlawful and unjust. You have a legal obligation to disobey. We encourage you to go home, and we will support you in that decision.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Are We Waking Up Fast Enough to the Dangers of AI Militarism?
As we continue to be force-fed AI, the voting public needs to find a way to push back against this onslaught against both personal autonomy and the democratic process.
Oct 01, 2025
AI is everywhere these days. There’s no escape. And as geopolitical events appear to spiral out of control in the Ukraine and Gaza, it seems clear that AI, while theoretically a force for positive change, has become has become a worrisome accelerant to the volatility and destabilization that may lead us to once again thinking the unthinkable—in this case World War III.
The reckless and irresponsible pace of AI development badly needs a measure of moderation and wisdom that seems sorely lacking in both the technology and political spheres. Those who we have relied on to provide this in the past—leading academics, forward-thinking political figures, and various luminaries and thought leaders in popular culture—often seem to be missing in action in terms of loudly sounding the necessary alarms. Lately, however, and offering at least a shred of hope, we’re seeing more coverage in the mainstream press of the dangers of AI’s destructive potential.
To get a feel for perspectives on AI in a military context, it’s useful to start with an article that appeared in Wired magazine a few years ago, “The AI-Powered, Totally Autonomous Future of War Is Here.” This treatment practically gushed with excitement about the prospect of autonomous warfare using AI. It went on to discuss how Big Tech, the military, and the political establishment were increasingly aligning to promote the use of weaponized AI in a mad new AI-nuclear arms race. The article also provided a clear glimpse of the foolish transparency of the all-too-common Big Tech mantra that “it’s really dangerous but let’s do it anyway.”
More recently, we see supposed thought leaders like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt sounding the alarm about AI in warfare after, of course, being heavily instrumental in promoting it. A March 2025 article appearing in Fortune noted that “Eric Schmidt, Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang, and Center for AI Safety Director Dan Hendrycks are warning that treating the global AI arms race like the Manhattan Project could backfire. Instead of reckless acceleration, they propose a strategy of deterrence, transparency, and international cooperation—before superhuman AI spirals out of control.” It’s unfortunate that Mr. Schmidt didn’t think more about his planetary-level “oops” before he decided to be so heavily instrumental in developing its capabilities.
No one had the opportunity to vote on whether we want to live in a quasi-dystopian technocratic world where human control and agency is constantly being eroded.
The acceleration of frenzied AI development has now been green-lit by the Trump administration with US Vice President JD Vance’s deep ties to Big Tech becoming more and more apparent. This position is easily parsed—full speed ahead. One of Trump’s first official acts was to announce the Stargate Project, a $500 billion investment in AI infrastructure. Both President Donald Trump and Vance have made their position crystal clear about not attempting in any way to slow down progress by developing AI guardrails and regulation even to the point of attempting to preclude states from enacting their own regulation as part of the so called “Big Beautiful Bill.”
Widening The Public Debate
If there is any bright spot in this grim scenario, it’s this: The dangers of AI militarism are starting to get more widely publicized as AI itself gets increased scrutiny in political circles and the mainstream media. In addition to the Fortune article and other media treatments, a recent article in Politico discussed how AI models seem to be predisposed toward military solutions and conflict:
Last year Schneider, director of the Hoover Wargaming and Crisis Simulation Initiative at Stanford University, began experimenting with war games that gave the latest generation of artificial intelligence the role of strategic decision-makers. In the games, five off-the-shelf large language models or LLMs—OpenAI’s GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4-Base; Anthropic’s Claude 2; and Meta’s Llama-2 Chat—were confronted with fictional crisis situations that resembled Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s threat to Taiwan. The results? Almost all of the AI models showed a preference to escalate aggressively, use firepower indiscriminately, and turn crises into shooting wars—even to the point of launching nuclear weapons. “The AI is always playing Curtis LeMay,” says Schneider, referring to the notoriously nuke-happy Air Force general of the Cold War. “It’s almost like the AI understands escalation, but not deescalation. We don’t really know why that is.”
Personally, I don’t think “why that is” is much of a mystery. There’s a widespread perception that AI is a fairly recent development coming out of the high-tech sector. But this is a somewhat misleading picture frequently painted or poorly understood by corporate-influenced media journalists. The reality is that AI development was a huge ongoing investment on the part of government agencies for decades. According to the Brookings Institution, in order to advance an AI arms race between the US and China, the federal government, working closely with the military, has served as an incubator for thousands of AI projects in the private sector under the National AI Initiative act of 2020. The COO of Open AI, the company that created ChatGPT, openly admitted to Time magazine that government funding has been the main driver of AI development for many years.
This national AI program has been overseen by a surprising number of government agencies. They include but are not limited to government alphabet soup agencies like DARPA, DOD, NASA, NIH, IARPA, DOE, Homeland Security, and the State Department. Technology is power and, at the end of the day, many tech-driven initiatives are chess pieces in a behind-the-scenes power struggle taking place in an increasingly opaque technocratic geopolitical landscape. In this mindset, whoever has the best AI systems will gain not only technological and economic superiority but also military dominance. But, of course, we have seen this movie before in the case of the nuclear arms race.
The Politico article also pointed out that AI is being groomed to make high-level and human-independent decisions concerning the launch of nuclear weapons:
The Pentagon claims that won’t happen in real life, that its existing policy is that AI will never be allowed to dominate the human “decision loop” that makes a call on whether to, say, start a war—certainly not a nuclear one. But some AI scientists believe the Pentagon has already started down a slippery slope by rushing to deploy the latest generations of AI as a key part of America’s defenses around the world. Driven by worries about fending off China and Russia at the same time, as well as by other global threats, the Defense Department is creating AI-driven defensive systems that in many areas are swiftly becoming autonomous—meaning they can respond on their own, without human input—and move so fast against potential enemies that humans can’t keep up.
Despite the Pentagon’s official policy that humans will always be in control, the demands of modern warfare—the need for lightning-fast decision-making, coordinating complex swarms of drones, crunching vast amounts of intelligence data, and competing against AI-driven systems built by China and Russia—mean that the military is increasingly likely to become dependent on AI. That could prove true even, ultimately, when it comes to the most existential of all decisions: whether to launch nuclear weapons.
The AI Technocratic Takeover: Planned for Decades
Learning the history behind the military’s AI plans is essential to understanding its current complexities. Another eye-opening perspective on the double threat of AI and nuclear working in tandem was offered by Peter Byrne in “Into the Uncanny Valley: Human-AI War Machines”:
In 1960, J.C.R. Licklider published “Man-Computer Symbiosis” in an electronics industry trade journal. Funded by the Air Force, Licklider explored methods of amalgamating AIs and humans into combat-ready machines, anticipating the current military-industrial mission of charging AI-guided symbionts with targeting humans…
Fast forward sixty years: Military machines infused with large language models are chatting verbosely with convincing airs of authority. But, projecting humanoid qualities does not make those machines smart, trustworthy, or capable of distinguishing fact from fiction. Trained on flotsam scraped from the internet, AI is limited by a classic “garbage in-garbage out” problem, its Achilles’ heel. Rather than solving ethical dilemmas, military AI systems are likely to multiply them, as has been occurring with the deployment of autonomous drones that cannot reliably distinguish rifles from rakes, or military vehicles from family cars…. Indeed, the Pentagon’s oft-echoed claim that military artificial intelligence is designed to adhere to accepted ethical standards is absurd, as exemplified by the live-streamed mass murder of Palestinians by Israeli forces, which has been enabled by dehumanizing AI programs that a majority of Israelis applaud. AI-human platforms sold to Israel by Palantir, Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, Dell, and Oracle are programmed to enable war crimes and genocide.
The role of the military in developing most of the advanced technologies that have worked their way into modern society still remains beneath the threshold of public awareness. But in the current environment characterized by the unholy alliance between corporate and government power, there no longer seems to be an ethical counterweight to unleashing a Pandora’s box of seemingly out-of-control AI technologies for less than noble purposes.
That the AI conundrum has appeared in the midst of a burgeoning world polycrisis seems to point toward a larger-than-life existential crisis for humanity that’s been ominously predicted and portrayed in science fiction movies, literature, and popular culture for decades. Arguably, these were not just films for speculative entertainment but in current circumstances can be viewed as warnings from our collective unconscious that have largely gone unheeded. As we continue to be force-fed AI, the voting public needs to find a way to push back against this onslaught against both personal autonomy and the democratic process.
No one had the opportunity to vote on whether we want to live in a quasi-dystopian technocratic world where human control and agency is constantly being eroded. And now, of course, AI itself is upon us in full force, increasingly weaponized not only against nation-states but also against ordinary citizens. As Albert Einstein warned, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” In a troubling ironic twist, we know that Einstein played a strong role in developing the technology for nuclear weapons. And yet somehow, like J. Robert Oppenheimer, he eventually seemed to understand the deeper implications of what he helped to unleash.
Can we say the same about today’s AI CEOs and other self-appointed experts as they gleefully unleash this powerful force while at the same time casually proclaiming that they don’t really know if AI and AGI might actually spell the end of humanity and Planet Earth itself?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular