Trump's experiment is a nightmare come true for America's founding fathers

A member of the Mississippi National Guard stands near the Washington Monument on the National Mall in August. Reuters

We may be in the midst of the most significant reorientation of structural power in US political history. President Donald Trump has laid the groundwork for the completely unprecedented use of the military in cities to combat what he says is a growing "insurrection" by not merely left-wing extremists but also the Democratic Party. But is the Trump administration actually describing their own conduct and intentions?

On September 25, Mr Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum titled "Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organised Political Violence", which begins with a reference to the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. It cites a few other instances of political violence against right-wing targets in recent years, and asserts these are all manifestations of “a combination of sophisticated, organised campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalisation, threats and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes and prevent the functioning of a democratic society."

The Trump administration insists there is a plot to destroy US democracy. It never mentions the January 6, 2021, insurrection – since all participants were pardoned en masse by Mr Trump – or other efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. This new "insurrection" involves "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism and anti-Christianity", and "support for the overthrow of the United States government".

The memorandum announces "a national strategy" to "intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts". It promises to investigate "institutional and individual funders" of the plot. US tax authorities are now ordered to "ensure that no tax-exempt entities are directly or indirectly financing … domestic terrorism". The Justice Department will be designating, for the first time, entities as "domestic terrorist organisations".

Federalised National Guard and military troops are being deployed in (almost entirely Democratic-run) cities because, Mr Trump says, "these Democrats are like insurrectionists”. He has called for the imprisonment of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker for opposing the deployment of troops in Chicago.

Mr Trump's Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, has led the rhetorical charge. "The Democratic Party has filled our legal and judicial system with radicals who protect left-wing terrorists." A "large and growing movement of left-wing terrorism" is being "shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general”.

"The only remedy," he concludes, "is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks."

Boots on the ground in America: Trump's National Guard posting divides Washington

02:14

Mr Miller even told CNN that Mr Trump has “plenary authority” over use of the military, strongly suggesting no limitations to his power.

Mr Trump gathered 800 military commanders on September 30, instructing them to prepare to battle an "invasion from within". "Washington, DC," he declared, "is now a safe city," having gone "from our most unsafe city to just about our safest city in a period of a month." This is utter nonsense.

Most ominously of all, he said “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military".

Mr Trump seems prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to bypass the objections of judges, governors and mayors to his transformation of the US Armed Forces to something closer to a domestic political police.

Using the Insurrection Act could turn the military into a domestic vanguard of political repression, particularly if there is no actual insurrection.

Despite all the hyperventilating rhetoric, the "insurrection" and highly organised left-wing "domestic terrorism" is an outright fabrication. It simply does not exist.

There is indeed some left-wing violence, such as the assassination of Mr Kirk. But according to the FBI, 2025, which is still unfolding, is the first year in the past 30 in which right-wing violence wasn’t considerably worse.

The Presidential Memorandum and administration’s rhetoric would seem to have arisen from a post-9/11-style unprecedented emergency. And, indeed, the administration posits an unprecedented terrorist upheaval, led by faux-respectable liberal institutions secretly organising and funding smaller, more shadowy groups that commit the fictional wet work.

Don't let the apparent atmosphere of relative calm, order and stability that prevails throughout the country, including cities, deceive you. Don't believe your lying eyes!

There’s a catastrophic surge of leftist violence everywhere – the consequence of this gigantic conspiracy to destroy the country and its constitutional government.

This is the narrative driving the Trump administration's unprecedented push to use the military not for fighting wars abroad, but political repression at home – a task for which it has historically been largely forbidden because, obviously, it is a major step towards strongman rule rather than rule of law.

The memorandum announces 'a national strategy' to 'intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts'

So, Americans – precious few of whom are actually paying attention to any of this – must eventually side with one of two competing national narratives that are mutually exclusive about the present political moment, although both sides would agree the country faces a terrifying crisis.

Are Mr Trump and Mr Miller right that there is a secret liberal, and indeed "Democrat" party, conspiracy to organise and finance a growing wave of leftist domestic terrorism – the major evidence for which is the Kirk assassination, and two failed attempts on Mr Trump‘s life – justifying extra constitutional crackdowns on political organising, speech and protests, especially against the administration's anti-migrant crackdown?

Or is it in fact the administration that is engaging in "sophisticated, organised campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalisation, threats and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes and prevent the functioning of a democratic society" by using government power to target liberal institutions, possibly including the Democratic Party itself and, for the first time in modern US history, use the military as a tool of domestic political repression – particularly against demonstrations it anticipates as potentially growing in strength and size in the coming years?

Is it just possible neither are true, and that the Trump administration is justifying a ridiculous crackdown on a non-existent conspiracy that is so preposterous it can't do much harm – again with the possible exception of attacks on protests against the persecution of migrants?

Perhaps.

But this does truly seem like a concerted effort to use the Kirk assassination as a pretext to pave the way to strongman power in place of a constitutional democracy and rule of law.

We are certainly witnessing one of the boldest experiments in reshaping the American political system at its core since the founding of the republic – exactly as many of its founders deeply feared the Constitution could not ultimately prevent.