In our final Wednesday Seminar of the semester, Risa Brooks will discuss how political leaders transform professional militaries into partisan aligned forces in eroding democracies. 📡Bookmark the livestream https://youtube.com/live/xP1o4ATVRRQ?feature=share @risabrooks12.bsky.social

Hard to imagine a more sinister & dangerous argument, couched in euphemism & high-minded language. "This essay does not argue liberalism will collapse, only that [US] military officers should be intellectually (and spiritually) prepared for alternatives." warontherocks.com/2025/10/the-...

Hey, you! Do you worry about executive abuse of military authority, but need a framework to analyze it? Well stop *worrying.* My new article on "executive shirking" is out from Perspectives on Politics. Thanks to everyone who gave me feedback on this one! #civmilbluesky

Hey friends, over the last few days I have gotten A LOT of follows from bots. Suggest you check your follows and block as needed.

Sharing this recent podcast by me on how civil-military relations (ideally) should work in liberal democracies. See here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsma...

It's easy to see this speech as just weirdly performative, but there's a lot more—and a lot worse—going on here. The meeting & speeches are part of a larger project aimed at promoting the military leadership’s partisan alignment with the administration. How? 1/

The reason for military rules of engagement and adhering to laws of armed combat is not “political correctness,” it’s better strategy, serves long-term national interest, and is a way to make an awful part of the human experience a little less awful, based on lessons learned from centuries of blood.

The public’s capacity to hold the military & its civilian ldrs accountable is a core principle of democratic control of the military. If Pentagon reporters can’t do their jobs, citizens won‘t have info they need to do their part Which may be the point here. www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...

I imagined that sooner or later we might see these kind of tensions emerging in the open. Wouldn‘t surprise me if there are growing and active efforts by pol ldrs to exploit such divisions in the ranks to break down nonpartisanship & lay groundwork for norms of partisan alignment to take hold

My take is that senior officers are completely unprepared for this moment. When demo is healthy, there is little tension btw adhering to civilian control & serving democracy Faced w/ the manifest clash in principles these missions present, they are doing what's familiar--following orders.1/

We are very alarmed.

Sending the Guard to police DC citizens politicizes the military--just like using it and active duty troops against protesters and in immigration and counter cartel missions does. This is no accident. It's part of a broader effort to transform the military into a partisan force.

NYT reporting today that the admin. is planning to use the U.S. military ag/ cartels. This has actually been in the works for awhile as I argued in this Foreign Affairs piece from April. It's part of what I see as an effort to politicize the military and transform it into a partisan force. 1/

Some thoughts about the military parade in my hometown of Washington DC today -- specifically, the route. Military parades in DC are quite rare. But when they happen, they have always begun, symbolically and geographically, at the Capitol and moved outward. 1/

Instructing soldiers not to hoot and clap like they are at a political rally when a president gives a speech is civil-military relations 101. Any officer should know this without even thinking about it.

This is such a thoughtful piece.

Learning more is not making it better. Shout out to @risabrooks12.bsky.social for insightful commentary. www.military.com/daily-news/2...

Really important story - army officials asked soldiers to identify themselves if they don't agree with Trump's politics that way he'd get only supportive soldiers in uniform during his political rally on base. Heavier soldiers were also barred from participating.

Yesterday was rough for U.S. civ-mil relations watchers. Most recent violations of the military's nonpartisan ethic have been instigated by civilian side (politicians). Clapping at Bragg came from breakdown on mil side. Let's hope mil leaders take it as a wake-up call & get their house in order.

To clarify, I'm not worried because this tells us something about the political views of "The Troops." I'm alarmed because of how many times/places professional norms had to break down for this to happen.

There are reports that service members were vetted in advance to ensure they would go along. If true, that makes it even worse. It means those in charge were complicit in the breakdown of professional norms.

This is not a good sign.

guess its official, welp

👋 Kent State grad here with 26+ years in the Guard and Reserve.

Trump has federalized at least 2,000 National Guard forces and reportedly plans to deploy troops to Los Angeles over Governor Newsom’s objections. If that happens, it will be the first time since 1965 that a president has sent troops into a state without a state request. 1/19

Sounds like they are laying the groundwork for sending active duty to the streets of LA and possibly beyond

OK, I know more about the CA case and we have more information on the deployments coming out, so a few thoughts. 1. This is a massive overreach of POTUS authority. Using Section 12406 to federalize/deploy military forces w/out also invoking the Insurrection Act is literally unprecedented. 1/

Seeing lots of discussion about whether the U.S. military will go along or push back against orders to confront mass protests. Here’s my take on what other cases and prior research tell us about what might happen. 1/

Once again, the real problem is when the orders are legal but unethical or immoral. The Army trains soldiers to refuse illegal orders. It does not train soldiers on parsing orders that are legal but unethical.

A crucial piece of reading as the federal government attempts to turn the California Army National Guard on its own residents (h/t @pamspaulding.bsky.social)

Increased #US #military involvement in missions "at home", with explicit politicisation and the danger of militarisation, in exchange for more autonomy, less oversight of operations abroad. Broken guardrails By @risabrooks12.bsky.social @foreignaffairs.com #CMR www.foreignaffairs.com/united-state...

If U.S. military leaders become subject to partisan litmus tests, they may “skew their views toward what the president wants to hear—rather than what objective assessments say—about the costs, risks, and benefits of military operations,” warns @risabrooks12.bsky.social.

I might add that this sort of comment by the local commander shows a lot of political naivete about how fraught the border mission could easily become in the eyes of the public.

This apparent enthusiasm for domestic missions is striking & not what I would have expected. I wonder how widely held this view is within the U.S. military. “This is their mission for their generation, and they’re embracing it,” said Maj. Gen. Scott M. Naumann. www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/u...

It strikes me that at some point the public is going to blame the U.S. military for implementing the admin's border policies. It won't matter to ppl that the mil is following civilian directives and that technically it is detaining not arresting migrants. www.texastribune.org/2025/05/02/t...

More workarounds at the border to Posse Comitatus (the law largely prohibits the military playing domestic law enforcement roles). “Troops in Texas can now also detain trespassers, conduct searches, use crowd control measures and install barriers and signs." www.military.com/daily-news/2...

“The Trump administration has considered using drones to blow up fentanyl labs or using U.S. Special Forces to capture or kill drug bosses, according to people familiar with bilateral security discussions.” www.wsj.com/world/americ...

We are now seeing the results of a significant decline in oversight and transparency in military operations combined with the civilian leadership’s permissive approach to civilian harm. Very dangerous. www.military.com/daily-news/2...

“rising civilian casualties raise questions about the U.S. military’s selection of targets to strike. The Pentagon’s Central Command, which oversees the air campaign, has provided few details about its operations.” www.wsj.com/world/middle...

Friends, I am so excited to share that my book is finally available for pre-order, and it’s CHEAP 😁 (They accidentally put up a cover image w an older version of the title - no “allegiance”) www.bloomsbury.com/us/on-order-...

There is no coup happening, ppl. This is more about back-stabbing and factional politics on the civilian side with some anonymous griping mixed in.

PSA if you are a journalist writing about civilian control of the military, politicization of the military, or other matters civ-mil there are many lovely people over at #CivMilSky who have thought deeply about these issues and would be happy to share their expertise!

Yes, this has been seriously under appreciated. There appears to be NO functional strategic assessment process driving decision-making in the current WH/Pentagon. Bad in the Houthi situation, but very, very dangerous if we hit an international crisis

It’s cool we have a combatant command running a bordering on rogue air campaign with zero direction or goals from OSD

According to his granddaughter, Admiral Nimitz would have been appalled by the removal of the books from the Naval Academy’s library. As she described him, “He was a humble, honorable, intelligent and supportive leader who was honored and loved by everyone he came into contact with.”

The Pentagon is establishing a “military installation” in land at the southern border, allowing mil to “exclude persons” from it. They won’t call it detention, but implies service members will be directly engaging with migrants at least temporarily - a notable escalation in border militarization 1/

The Pentagon is establishing a “military installation” in land at the southern border, allowing mil to “exclude persons” from it. They won’t call it detention, but implies service members will be directly engaging with migrants at least temporarily - a notable escalation in border militarization 1/

As I say in the article: “We are training these people to go out and command troops and to lead people potentially in war. We want them to be resilient, because what they’re going to face is far worse than a book on a bookshelf with a title that possibly makes them uncomfortable.”

Looks like the U.S. might be getting its war on cartels sooner rather than later www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...