'This is a political stunt': Military leaders sound off on Trump's National Guard deployment

It's a shock just to say it out loud. There are boots on the ground in the streets of our nation's capital this afternoon. Today, National Guard troops arrived earlier today acting on orders from their commander in chief to execute a takeover of Washington DC's police department in order to fight crime, which data suggests is at its lowest in decades. And we should point out, which hasn't been done in the past to solve crime or anything else.

Earlier, Mayor Muriel Bowser met with Attorney General Pam Bondi, along with several top Justice Department officials, about how to actually implement Trump's new directive, as protests have erupted across Washington, D.C. And while administration officials maintain

that Donald Trump's decision to federalize DC's police force is entirely legal, there are clear and obvious questions and concerns about what happens next. More specifically, what if this is just the beginning? On that topic, the Washington Post today citing internal Pentagon documents published exclusive new reporting into a plan that would formalize

a so-called military reaction force for deployment in instances of civil unrest. Quote, the plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour. The documents say they would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively. Remember, Donald Trump's military takeover of Washington is just the latest instance of the

ways in which Trump has directed the military to take action on American soil against Americans. From the New York Times, quote, already this year, Trump has deployed some 10,000 active duty troops to the southwest U.S. border to choke off the flow of drugs as well as migrants and 4,700 National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles to help quell protests that

had erupted over immigration raids and to protect the federal agents conducting them. All but about 250 of those National Guard troops have since been withdrawn. Now there will be 800 National Guard troops on the streets of Washington, D.C. for the foreseeable future. We don't really know how long they'll be there. But we cannot say that we weren't warned. Remember

what General John Kelly told the New York Times in an interview before the November election? And even to say it for political purposes to get elected, I think it's a very, very bad thing, let alone actually doing it. When I was in the White House, for that matter, DHS, I was, you know, originally, the conversation would be, you know, Mr. President, that's outside your authority, or, you know, that's a routine use. You really don't want to do that inside the United States.

But now that he's talking about it as, I'm going to do it, again, it's disturbing.

And it wasn't just John Kelly. There was Mark Esper, Donald Trump's former defense secretary. Those wondering just how bad could it get should remember what Esper, Donald Trump's former defense secretary. Those wondering just how bad could it get should remember what Esper, Donald Trump's former defense secretary, said about Trump's focus in the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd protests.

What specifically was he suggesting that the U.S. military should do to these protesters?

He says, can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something. And he's suggesting that that's what we should do, that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.

The commander in chief was suggesting that the US military shoot protesters.

Yes, in the straits of our nation's capital. That's right. Shocking.

Shocking is where we start today with some of our favorite experts and friends. Former Secretary of the Air Force, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Secretary Frank Kendall is here, also joining us. Retired US Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is here, also joining us.

Opinion columnist for The New York Times, David French is here. Secretary Kendall, let me start with you and let me show you one more voice from Trump 1.0. This is former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Milley, talking about the regret he felt for being a uniformed military leader and being dragged into politics in 1.0.

This is after he appeared in Lafayette Square.

When I walked from the White House to outside with President Trump toward what is a political event. Look, President Trump could do whatever he wants to do. He's a politician, but I'm not. And because I went out there in that uniform, that was a terrible moment for the United States military.

And it gave the perception of politicization. It wasn't intentional. It was done by accident on my part. As soon as I realized it was a political event, I walked away from it.

So I guess I bring back the voices of General Kelly and Mark Esper and Mark Milley, General Mark Milley, to make clear that we were warned. We were warned as a country, as a public, as a media, of what Trump wanted to do with the military, but now that he's doing it, if you could just tell us what made those men issue

these very rare warnings to the country about what it would mean to put the American military on the streets of American cities and potentially use them against Americans.

Yeah, I know General Milley and Secretary Esper very well. I've had conversations with both of them about some of these things. What we're seeing essentially is a military use for what, in this case at least, I think is a political stunt. They're used as props, basically, to try to reinforce the messaging that the president is trying to put out.

And that's very dangerous. And I think the American people are being conditioned to the president calling up the National Guard in particular, but the military, to whatever ghoul he might have domestically and for political purposes.

I think it's very dangerous for our country.

What Secretary Kendall recourses do people have? I mean, it's, it's clear that everything that the president can do and more he will do. What is an appropriate response from the public?

I think we have to let people know how we feel about this. I think we have to, you know, there has to be a response. And I think we'll see that. That makes the situation more dangerous, unfortunately. The people that are going to be on the streets here in D.C. are not trained in the type of work they're going to be asked to do.

They're not trained very effectively to do police work, certainly. They may have some training in crowd control and so on. But it's going to create a dangerous situation. Every one of us as citizens has the right to speak out, let our members of Congress know, and make it clear that this is not the America that we want to see, one in which there are uniformed people, military people, on our streets carrying weapons,

particularly one that's counterproductive in many cases and not justified by the so-called emergency that the president has declared.

General Hertling, I remember when troops were deployed, not just National Guard, but active duty Marines to the streets of Los Angeles a couple months ago. We're living in dog years. It feels like 11 years ago, but it was a couple months ago.

And a former senior military official said to me, it's wrong for all these reasons, right? It's not what we look like. It's not what we look like to our friends and enemies around the world but it's also wrong in terms of not just the training that you

receive in the military but the D.N.A. of who joins the military. This person explained to me that you join the military to go defend your country on a battlefield typically far far away and that to be turned on your neighbors and friends in your own towns and cities is not at all what the military trains men and women for. Do you agree with that and your thoughts on where we are today.

Yeah I most certainly do. And Nicole and here's here's the thing about the National Guard. Let's talk about them for just a second. I was an active Army officer. But the National Guard is different. Army officers deploy, go to other countries, do the things we're asked to do in combat primarily. The Guard has a much more difficult mission, truthfully, because they also go to combat when asked to and when federalized. But they also do things like conduct humanitarian relief. They also do things, which is what we are seeing them do right now,

and I'll caveat that in a minute, of providing military support to civilian authorities. When manpower is needed by other civilian authorities, the Department of Homeland Security, this, you know, whoever, name that tomb, they ask for military personnel to do that, usually the guard. But truthfully, when they are asked to do that, they're given a mission.

And that mission normally has a task and a purpose. And in this case, as Secretary Kendall just said, I personally can't see what the mission is right now. Because right now, there's no indication that they're protecting buildings or putting up concertina wire

or doing administrative tasks so the rest of the police force can get in the field and do what they're supposed to do. I don't know what they're gonna do. So until we get what their mission is, what their tasks are,

and how they see their purpose in contributing this, I have to agree with Secretary Kendall and say, this is a political stunt, and it's used for intimidation. I mean, I watched Secretary Hegseth on a news program last night talking around the fact that guardsmen, when they're on the ground,

certainly can use force if they're threatened. But he was couching it in the view that, oh, yes, they're going to use force, potentially. You know, if they're threatened, they're going to use force. So the only thing I can see is that this is a potential in case there are riots, to then deploy the National Guard to provide that civilian support, to provide crowd control. But none of that's happening right now. To say that the Guard is being deployed to conduct

police action, that's, as Secretary Kendall just said, is not what they do. I mean, even military police will not do that in a civilian environment. They are spent to do it on a base in combat, someone else like that. And in fact, it's against the law for them to do it unless the president declares an And in fact, it's against the law for them to do it unless the president declares an insurrection act, which usually comes about when there's an insurrection.