Federalizing the California National Guard to respond to immigration protests in LA, uniformed service members booing a reference to former President Joe Biden in President Trump’s speech, tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue during the first U.S. military parade since the 1991 Gulf War victory celebration, over 4,000 active-duty transgender military members forced to end their military careers: civil-military issues unquestionably have been at the forefront during the first six months of the second Trump administration.
Where do norms around civil-military relations originate from in the United States? How does having a fighting force that’s nonpartisan help ensure each member’s ability to uphold their oath to the Constitution? We spoke with SFS Professor Heidi Urben, professor of the practice at the Center for Security Studies and a retired U.S. Army colonel, to explore these topics.
Q: On Saturday, June 7, 2025, President Trump federalized the California National Guard to quell immigration protests in LA; Governor Gavin Newsom had not requested that he do so. Two days later, the president deployed U.S. Marines to join them. What is the context for using the U.S. military to respond to domestic unrest? What should people be watching for?
Setting aside the questions of authorities, of which there are many and are already being adjudicated in the court system, is the broader political question of, under what circumstances should the military be deployed on U.S. soil in response to civil unrest? Certainly, there have been multiple instances throughout U.S. history in which this has occurred, but each time, it has been fraught. Deploying federal forces in response to civil disturbances and having them perform law enforcement functions has generally been considered a last resort in the United States. Additionally, active-duty troops typically receive minimal training in responding to civil disturbances, because it is not considered part of their core roles and missions, so there is a potential for them to find themselves in situations for which they are not well prepared. It will be important to watch public opinion polling as the troop deployments in California stretch on and how the question of authorities plays out in the courts in the coming days.
Q: On June 10, 2025, President Trump gave a speech at Fort Bragg before uniformed service members who cheered his remarks about “woke garbage” and booed as he mentioned former President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders. How do military leaders normally instruct troops to behave in situations like this?
Partisan polarization in the United States and the American public’s relatively high confidence in the military have created a situation in recent years in which politicians cannot resist the temptation to use the military as a tool for their own partisan and electoral benefit. It is also exacerbated by the fact many Americans lack a good understanding of civil-military norms but instead want to look at the military as their partisan ally. This is harmful for several reasons: it damages the relationship the military has with society, degrades public confidence in the military, sows division and disruption within the military and runs the risk of the military being looked upon as any other interest group. What is most required is for civilian political leaders to stop dragging the military into partisan political fights. The military also has an obligation to educate its service members on the importance of remaining nonpartisan and keeping their personal politics private. The military’s norm of nonpartisanship ensures the military remains subordinate to civilian authority and upholds its oath to the Constitution.
Q: The U.S. Army commemorated its 250th anniversary on June 14, 2025, with a military parade in Washington, DC, that included around 6,600 soldiers, 150 tanks and other vehicles and more than 50 aircraft. How does this compare to previous military parades in the U.S.?
The United States doesn’t have a long tradition of military parades, perhaps because the historical tradition in this country, going back to its founding, was one of real skepticism towards a standing army and the potential threat to liberty it could pose. The last time there was a military parade in the United States was in 1991 to mark victory in the Persian Gulf War, and there were also similar victory parades at the end of both world wars and the Civil War. The American public also seem ambivalent at best about the Army’s 250th birthday parade, with 60% of respondents in a recent AP/NORC poll saying it was not a good use of government funds and only 40% approving of the parade.
Q: The deadline for the estimated 4,200 active-duty transgender military members to accept what the Defense Department calls “voluntary separation” came during the first week of Pride Month. The U.S. has a system in which civilians control the military, by design, and over the years, policy about service-people who are LGTBQ has changed. What are the possible impacts on civil-military relations and military readiness based on the recent change in policy towards transgender military members?
Unlike the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which was signed into law in 2010, transgender policies have been enacted by executive order and Department of Defense (DOD) policy, which are more easily overturned. Although a 2016 RAND report indicated allowing transgender individuals to openly serve in the military would likely have a minimal impact on readiness, the transgender policy changes in DOD over the past decade reflect the close political divisions in the country. According to Gallup, public support for transgender troops being able to serve openly in the military has dropped from 71 percent in 2019 to 58 percent in 2025, driven primarily by a loss of Republican support, and to a lesser effect, by Independents. This further illustrates the partisan divide in the country and the impact the ongoing culture wars has on the armed forces.