The Dangers of Military Use on Civilians And Presidential Overreach

The prospect of a U.S. President acting as a dictator and using the military against their own people represents a fundamental threat to the core principles of American democracy and the rule of law. The current Trump administration, however, has shown taking small steps towards the use of the military, including the national guard, on civilian soil, in addition to the use of hundreds of millions for a military parade for his birthday, little by little putting the military use on U.S. soil, more and more. 

Immediate Resource for Military Members: Confidential Support for U.S. Military Members Facing Unlawful Orders | About Face Veterans  

Such use of the military on civilian soil and against civilians:

1. Undermine Constitutional Governance: It would bypass the checks and balances designed to limit executive power, rendering Congress and the judiciary effectively powerless to restrain the President. This would dismantle the separation of powers and replace constitutional rule with arbitrary presidential will.
2. Erode Civil Liberties: The use of the military against citizens would likely involve the suppression of dissent, violation of freedom of speech and assembly, and potentially mass detention or violence against those deemed opponents. Individual rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution, would be severely curtailed or eliminated.
3. Destroy Trust and Legitimacy: A President who turns the military on their own population would lose all legitimacy and destroy the trust between the government and the governed. This would create deep societal division, potentially leading to widespread civil unrest or conflict.
4. Lead to Authoritarianism: Using the military to enforce political will is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. It would signal the end of democratic processes and usher in a system where power is maintained through coercion and force rather than consent of the governed.
5. Weaponize a Trusted Institution: The U.S. military is intended to defend the nation and its Constitution. Using it against citizens would pervert its purpose, politicize the armed forces, and severely damage its standing both domestically and internationally.

In summary, a President using the military against citizens is not just a policy choice; it is a direct assault on the foundations of the United States, leading to the collapse of democratic institutions, the loss of fundamental rights, and the establishment of an authoritarian state. The  ACLU and The Circle, recommends Taking Action Now! ​by contacting congress to not allow the use of military on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens. Remind Congress to not allow this and that The Federalist Papers provide Civilian Control: The Founder's Defense Against Authoritarianism (see below).

What Can You Do?

Read tabs below to Take Action by contacting U.S. Congress!

• Authoritarianism Defense
• Contact Congress!
• News Video
• Military Oath
• June 14th Protest

<

>

The Founding Fathers established a system designed to prevent a U.S. President from becoming an authoritarian dictator using the military against citizens through several key constitutional principles and structures. Their experience with the British monarchy and their commitment to republicanism heavily influenced these safeguards.
Here's a brief overview with references to the U.S. Constitution:

1. Civilian Control of the Military: While the President is designated "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" (Article II, Section 2), this power is explicitly limited by Congress's legislative authority. Congress is granted the power:
   • "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 12) - This grants Congress control over the military's funding and existence.
   • "To provide and maintain a Navy;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 13) - Similar control over the navy.
   • "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 14) - This allows Congress to set the rules under which the military operates.
   • "To declare War," (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) - The decision to engage in large-scale military conflict is vested in the legislature, not solely the executive.
2. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: The division of governmental authority among three distinct branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) creates inherent checks on presidential power.
   • Congress can impeach and remove the President for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II, Section 4)
   • The Judiciary, through the power of judicial review (established in Marbury v. Madison, though the principle is inherent in the constitutional structure), can rule on the constitutionality of executive actions, including the use of the military. (Article III)
3. Militia Clauses: The Constitution distinguishes between a federal army and state militias. Congress has the power:
   • "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15) - This implies that the domestic use of military force, even state militias under federal command, is intended for specific, limited purposes and generally requires congressional authorization or a clear legal basis. The Insurrection Act, which grants the President power to use the military domestically in certain circumstances, is a statute passed by Congress and is therefore subject to congressional modification or repeal.
   • "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16) - This maintains a degree of state control over the militia, providing a potential counterweight to federal power.

These provisions collectively ensure that the President's authority over the military is not absolute and is subject to significant legal and political constraints from the other branches of government, particularly Congress. This structure was designed to prevent the concentration of military power in a single individual and protect against its use for tyrannical purposes against the citizenry. The ACLU also recommends Taking Action Now!

---

References

• Civilian Control of the Military: While the President is designated "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" (Article II, Section 2), this power is explicitly limited by Congress's legislative authority. Congress is granted the power:
  • "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 12) - This grants Congress control over the military's funding and existence.
  • "To provide and maintain a Navy;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 13) - Similar control over the navy.
  • "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 14) - This allows Congress to set the rules under which the military operates.
  • "To declare War," (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) - The decision to engage in large-scale military conflict is vested in the legislature, not solely the executive.
• Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: The division of governmental authority among three distinct branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) creates inherent checks on presidential power.
  • "Congress can impeach and remove the President for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II, Section 4)
  • The Judiciary, through the power of judicial review (established in Marbury v. Madison, though the principle is inherent in the constitutional structure), can rule on the constitutionality of executive actions, including the use of the military. (Article III)
• Militia Clauses: The Constitution distinguishes between a federal army and state militias. Congress has the power:
  • "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15) - This implies that the domestic use of military force, even state militias under federal command, is intended for specific, limited purposes and generally requires congressional authorization or a clear legal basis. The Insurrection Act, which grants the President power to use the military domestically in certain circumstances, is a statute passed by Congress and is therefore subject to congressional modification or repeal.
  • "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16) - This maintains a degree of state control over the militia, providing a potential counterweight to federal power.

Dickson (2024) highlights that while the President holds significant national security powers, the principles of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer offer a vital framework for limiting potential overreach. It stresses the need for a "balanced institutional" approach that respects the boundaries of executive power and historical norms. Crucially, the author argues that all three branches of government must work to strengthen institutional safeguards against a "rogue President," particularly given the current fragility of rule-of-law norms. While no single solution is perfect, the text suggests that more legal constraints make authoritarianism harder to establish and empower government officials to uphold the rule of law.

This underscores why U.S. citizens must actively engage with their representatives in Congress. As one of the three branches empowered to strengthen these safeguards, Congress plays a critical role in enacting laws and exercising oversight to limit executive power, especially in the national security arena. By contacting Congress, citizens can voice their concerns, support proposed reforms, and press for the legislative action necessary to build stronger guardrails against potential executive overreach and protect the rule of law. Take Action Now!

take action now - contact congress

---

References

Dickinson, Laura, Protecting the U.S. National Security State from a Rogue President (June 21, 2024). 16 Harv. Nat'l Sec. J. 1 (2025)., GWU Legal Studies Research Paper 2024-41, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper 2024-41, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4872783 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4872783

If a U.S. President violates the U.S. Constitution and orders the military against U.S. citizens in a manner that is unconstitutional, the oath taken by military members indicates that their primary loyalty is to the Constitution, not to the individual in the office of the President.

Here's a brief summary of the implications:

• Duty to the Constitution: The oath explicitly requires military members to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." An order from the President that violates the Constitution could be interpreted as an action that is contrary to this core duty.
• Unlawful Orders: Military members are obligated to obey lawful orders. An order that is unconstitutional is considered an unlawful order.
• Refusal to Obey: In a scenario where a President issues an unconstitutional order to use the military against U.S. citizens, military members, based on their oath to the Constitution, would have a basis to refuse to obey such an order. Obeying an unlawful order can have legal consequences for the military member.
• Potential for Crisis: Such a situation would represent a profound constitutional crisis. It would likely involve complex legal and political challenges, including potential impeachment proceedings against the President and significant internal conflict within the military and government.

​In essence, the oath places the Constitution as the highest authority for military members. Therefore, an unconstitutional order from the President would conflict with their sworn duty, and they would be obligated to uphold the Constitution, even if it means disobeying the President.

---

References

​The oath of enlistment for members of the U.S. Armed Forces is codified in Title 10, Section 502 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). The oath for officers is found in Title 5, Section 3331 of the U.S.C. While the wording is slightly different between the enlisted and officer oaths, the core commitment to the Constitution is the same.

‘NO KINGS’ Nationwide Day of Defiance on Flag Day, During Trump’s Birthday Parade

Indivisible And Partners Announce ‘NO KINGS’ Nationwide Day of Defiance on Flag Day, During Trump’s Birthday Parade | Indivisible

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 5, 2025
Contact: Emily Phelps | [email protected]
Washington, D.C. -- As the nation prepares to witness a high-profile military parade in Washington, D.C., on Flag Day, June 14, a coalition of pro-democracy organizations is calling for a different kind of national action. Instead of allowing this spectacle to dominate the national narrative, the NO KINGS Nationwide Day of Defiance aims to redirect attention to the values of democracy, community strength, and resistance to authoritarianism across the country.
This coordinated mobilization invites Americans everywhere to stand up against the misuse of power, corruption, and the alarming displays of authoritarianism associated with recent leadership. Through marches, rallies, and demonstrations—from city streets to small towns—activists will emphasize that true power resides with the people, not in staged displays of dominance. With over 100 events already registered, the movement seeks to demonstrate that the spirit of democracy is alive and well, rooted in community action and collective resilience.

Official partners on No Kings as of Monday, May 5: 

• American Federation of Teachers
• Black Voters Matter
• CommonDefense.us
• Declaration for American Democracy
• Face the Music Collective
• Fix Democracy First
• Free Speech For People
• Indivisible
• National Action Network
• People Power United
• Public Citizen
• Social Security Works
• Stand Up America
• The Beacon
• Transformative Justice Coalition
• Vote Save America

---

---

Back to Negative Impact Topics