When will US generals stand-up to Trump? | Moustafa Bayoumi

"The question is hardly academic. The president has been rapidly intensifying military operations on United States soil during his second term. In April, he began expanding the military presence along parts of the US's southern border by establishing so-called national defense areas. Troops are now authorized to search, question and detain people in those zones, dangerously muddling the line between military rule and civilian law enforcement."

"By the summer, Trump sent in the marines and the national guard to Los Angeles, against the wishes of the governor, and later to Washington DC. Similar deployments of the national guard, also against the wishes of the respective state governors, are expected for Chicago and Portland, Oregon. Needless to say, US law, under the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement roles."

"A federal judge ruled in September that Trump's troop deployment in Los Angeles violated the act, but Trump is doing it anyway. And he expects the military to follow him. Not just follow him. He expects the military to venerate him. Trump turned a 250th Anniversary Parade for the Army, which we already didn't need, into his own 79th birthday celebration, which we definitely didn't need."

President Trump has escalated military operations within the United States, creating national defense areas along the southern border where troops can search, question, and detain civilians. He deployed Marines and National Guard units to Los Angeles and Washington, DC, and deployments against governors' wishes are expected for Chicago and Portland. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits military involvement in civilian law enforcement, and a federal judge ruled the Los Angeles deployment illegal, yet the deployments continue. The president has treated military events as personal spectacle and summoned commanders to reinforce loyalty, placing military leaders under pressure to prioritize presidential directives over constitutional constraints.

Read at www.theguardian.com