Amid various anxieties gripping the nation—food insecurity, travel disruptions, and political betrayals—one alarming concern often overlooked is the role of the military in American democracy. While critiques of U.S. imperialism and the expanding “national security state” are valid, the troubling trend of military involvement in political affairs cannot be ignored. The recent actions of former President Donald Trump appear to be retaliating against military leaders who do not align with his political agenda, risking the integrity of this critical institution by transforming it into a tool for political gain.

Officers associated with critics of Trump, such as General Mark Milley, have faced delayed promotions and career setbacks due to their perceived disloyalty. This pattern indicates a growing politicization of the military, where loyalty to Trump supersedes professional merit. The use of military personnel as props during Trump’s speeches, such as at Fort Bragg, underscores a blatant disregard for established norms that separate military division from political discourse.

Incidents involving questionable orders—like attacks on vessels in the Caribbean—further highlight how such actions can compromise military ethics and potentially expose service members to criminal liability. This creates a culture where military personnel may feel compelled to support Trumpist policies for fear of retribution. Prominent pardons, particularly those connected to the events surrounding the 2020 election, reinforce a notion of impunity that jeopardizes legal accountability for political allies while leaving opponents vulnerable to legal repercussions.

Figures like Pete Hegseth, who capitalized on television fame to push partisan views within the military, embody a troubling trend where performance supersedes strategy and ethics within defense policy. Hegseth’s calls for a “warrior ethos” focus more on theatrics than the serious nature of modern warfare, distorting the mission of military service in favor of superficial loyalty to a political figure.

The deployment of forces in Democratic cities raises critical questions about the normalization of military presence in civilian life, with a potential blurring of lines between policing and military engagement. This fusion may lead to a militarized view of American citizens, diminishing the principle of civilian oversight in favor of an omnipresent military force, a situation akin to what political scientists like Dan Moynihan describe as an emerging “omniforce.” This could evoke the fears expressed by the Founding Fathers regarding an overreaching executive branch.

Recent moves by Trump, including attempts to redirect congressional funds for military use, further illustrate his authoritarian inclinations. Other leaders, like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, have similarly created counter-terror units loyal primarily to the state, emphasizing how political leaders have historically sought to consolidate power through military allegiance.

Many Americans recall the surge of democratization during the late 20th century, often forgetting how precariously such transitions can occur. Timely decisions by military leaders during pivotal moments have historically supported democratic movements. Reflecting on examples from international contexts, including Chile’s 1988 plebiscite under General Fernando Matthei’s defiance against Pinochet, highlights the critical role the military plays in shaping democratic futures. The question remains: how will current American military leaders respond when faced with challenges for democracy?