The Perils of Politicizing the U.S. Military

For more than two centuries, the United States has sustained a defining democratic norm: a military that is apolitical, professional, and subordinate to civilian authority. This has been a source of enduring national strength, assuring Americans that the armed forces serve the Constitution rather than any political faction, maintaining bipartisan support in Congress, and demonstrating to allies and adversaries alike that U.S. power reflects national interests.

Read the full white paper: The Perils of Politicizing the U.S. Military

The longstanding American tradition of an apolitical military is under strain.

In recent years, the U.S. Armed Forces have been drawn into politically charged domestic deployments, senior officers and legal advisors have been removed or reassigned without clear justification, and military events have been used in partisan contexts.

Public trust in the military is not guaranteed: even the perception of politicization undermines confidence, weakens recruitment, and erodes bipartisan support. Frequent domestic deployments also strain readiness and state–federal relations.

This paper examines the laws and norms that safeguard the military’s apolitical character, recent developments that blur those boundaries, and ways to preserve political neutrality.

Politicization occurs when the military is used—or appears to be used—for partisan purposes rather than for national defense.

It differs from legitimate civilian control: elected leaders rightly set policy, but they must not use the armed forces to serve partisan agendas, reward loyalty, or project political strength.

Laws and norms guiding civil- military relations are being tested.

The Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrection Act set limits on domestic military use, but broad interpretations have blurred the line between defense and law enforcement. DoD Directive 1344.10, the Hatch Act, and professional norms uphold constitutional loyalty and the integrity of military advice. When that advice is distorted or ignored for political reasons, decision-making suffers and civilian control weakens. Once these guardrails erode, restoring trust is difficult.

Domestic deployments, once extraordinary, have become increasingly routine.

National Guard and active-duty troops have been used for missions ranging from immigration enforcement to urban “crime suppression,” sometimes over state and local objections. This risks normalizing military involvement in civilian life and eroding the principle that public safety belongs under accountable civilian control.

Removals of senior military leaders and politicized use of military symbols are undermining confidence in military neutrality.

Recent dismissals of senior officers and legal advisors have raised concerns about the stability of the chain of command and the independence of professional military advice. The replacement of Judge Advocates General—who safeguard adherence to U.S. and international law—has suggested that loyalty may be valued over candor, discouraging open advice and weakening the foundation of civilian control. At the same time, the use of troops, bases, and ceremonies in partisan settings has blurred the line between military service and political messaging, eroding morale and public trust in the military’s apolitical character.

We must preserve an apolitical military to maintain its professionalism and public trust.

Policymakers and the public can ensure the armed forces remain nonpartisan. Preserving this principle requires reaffirming professional military advice, transparency in deployments and personnel decisions, and adherence to the rule of law that shields the military from political pressure. The U.S. military’s credibility and legitimacy depend on its apolitical nature—and once that trust is lost, it is difficult to restore.