On May 14th, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) reintroduced the Selective Service Repeal Act, S. 4537). This bill already has the endorsement of dozens of peace and antiwar groups, draft resisters, religious organizations, antiwar feminists, and civil libertarian

On March 30th, the Selective Service System (SSS) sent the White House its proposed regulations for “automatic” [sic] draft registration for review and approval before they are made public. This is the first visible step in the transition from trying to get young men to sign themselves up for a…

_**This FAQ (drafted by members of the MLTF) can also be found in printable PDF format here:Illegal Orders FAQ – 11NOV2025**_ _******DoD Instruction 1325.06 permits a servicemember t****o possess a single copy of this document.**_ * * * **FAQs on refusing illegal orders** **_Version 2 – released November 11, 2025_** **** 1. **Do I have the right to refuse illegal orders?** **** 1. Yes! All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Your oath is to the Constitution (which incorporates international treaties ratified by the U.S. on human rights and the law of war), not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. 1. Under the UCMJ, a servicemember may be punished by court-martial for failure to obey any **_lawful_ **general order or regulation. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say that, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination normally can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal. **** 2. **What are some scenarios in which I might be given illegal orders?** **** None of the scenarios below would _necessarily_ involve illegal orders, but these are all actions that the Commander-In-Chief has discussed publicly as possibilities, which might involve the U.S. military, and that might lead to illegal orders. We don’t know if any of these things will happen, but you may want to think about what you would do if you were given orders to take part in any of these military actions or to take specific actions once deployed, since it may not be the deployment itself that’s illegal. In the U.S.: * Use of military forces to carry out deportations, removals, or detention of immigrants. (Removals to countries where those removed are likely to be tortured could violate the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party.) * Use of military forces against civilian protesters. (The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions, primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”) Outside the U.S.: * attacks on vessels in international or foreign waters. * attacks on surviving crew or passengers of vessels sunk at sea. * invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals. * attack, invasion, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force. * “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries. * attempt to annex Greenland or to attack or invade Canada. * use of nuclear weapons against China or another country. * Torture or mistreatment of civilians, prisoners of war, or other detainees. International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike. The International Court of Justice has also held that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law, although that ruling is not necessarily binding on US courts. Other treaties govern torture, treatment of detainees, stopping and boarding of vessels in international waters, etc. **** 3. **What are some of the reasons and ways that an order might be illegal?** For deployments within the United States, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits use of the military for policing. However, the Administration is developing ways around this law. In addition, the Insurrection Act gives the President the authority to use the military in certain circumstances to suppress any, “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that he or she determines is in violation of federal law. These legal technicalities make it difficult to tell if an order to deploy against U.S. residents is illegal. For deployments outside the United States, the first question becomes whether such a deployment is itself illegal. Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to war is legally questionable. In the examples above, Congress has not declared war. The Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to declare war. However, no US military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war and no court has found any of those illegal or unconstitutional as Presidential powers have expanded considerably over the years. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S. or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful and the question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial. Once deployed, the key is figuring out what a “patently illegal” order is. Prior legal cases suggest that this means any order to commit atrocities. For example, Lieutenant Calley serving in Vietnam was court-martialed for carrying out orders to kill unarmed women and children. A soldier in the Korean War was given an order to rape and steal which was found to be illegal. Under the UCMJ, murder is illegal but killing is not. And, under military rules, a military judge at a court-martial decides whether an order is legal. It is up to the individual servicemember to decide if an order to shoot unarmed civilians should be followed or is “patently illegal.” **** 4. **How can I tell if an order is illegal?** **** The only way to find out whether an order is legal or illegal is to obey, or refuse to obey, and see what is decided after the fact by a military court, a civilian court reviewing a military decision, or a war crimes or human rights tribunal. As a servicemenber subject to the UCMJ, you obey or disobey any order at your peril – which is, of course, one of the risks of enlistment. You can consult a civilian lawyer with expertise in military and international law, but they are very unlikely to be able to give you a definitive answer as to whether a particular order is likely to be found to be legal or illegal. **** 5. **What should I do if I think an order might be illegal?** 1. Know that you are not alone! Other members of the military are also thinking about these issues. Many civilian individuals and organizations support members of the military who refuse illegal orders. 1. Consider making use of your command’s open door policy to respectfully discuss your concerns about the order, as it may result in you being reassigned to less objectionable duty or removed from the deployment roster. 1. Be prepared! Plan ahead. Think about what you will do. Once you receive an order, you may have very little time to decide what to do. Commanders expect you to obey orders – immediately! 1. Talk to a lawyer (in advance, if possible) if you think you might receive an illegal order, you aren’t sure which orders might be illegal, or you aren’t sure about your rights or what you should do. 1. Be very careful about how and with whom you communicate. Don’t use military or government devices to communicate with a lawyer or counselor. You have the right to consult a civilian lawyer about your rights, but the military may try to punish free speech or research about your rights as insubordination. 1. If you decide not to refuse an order, you have the right to report possible illegal orders through the use of (1) a congressional inquiry, (2) an Inspector General complaint, or the UCMJ Article 138 “redress of grievance” process. 1. If this makes you uncomfortable, especially if there are some legal orders you could not in good conscience obey, you may be eligible for discharge or reassignment to noncombatant duty as a conscientious objector or other good discharge. Contact the groups listed below for counseling about this and other ways to get out of the military. 6. **What will happen if I****obey****an illegal order?** You might later be court-martialed for war crimes or charged with violations of the law of war or human rights law. Some treaties provide for “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes, torture, etc., with no statute of limitations, so you could be arrested in any country at any time. And be aware that only Lieutenant Calley, not any of his superiors, was charged for any of the war crimes committed at My Lai. Or it may be that nothing will happen. **** 7. **I or someone I know has been****charged with****refusing to obey an illegal order. Where can I get more information or advice?** **** The Military Law Task Force urges anyone who is deployed or might be facing a future deployment or order or is facing court-martial for refusing an illegal order to call us for a referral to a civilian attorney or counselor to discuss your options. Many of our member lawyers will be willing to do an initial free consultation, and if additional legal assistance is needed, organizations stand ready to help raise needed funds. For more information and resources, please scan the QR code or visit: nlgmltf.org (619-463-2369) girightshotline.org (877-447-4487) aboutfaceveterans.org veteransforpeace.org centeronconscience.org

"A LOT more units have just been activated for deployment than the public knows about"

The option of conscripting Americans for military service in Iran may be 'on the table' but it won't work. Here's why.

The MLTF worked with peace, civil liberties, and privacy organizations to submit joint comments to the Selective Service System (SSS) objecting to an SSS proposal for new and expanded “routine uses” of SSS registration data. The requirement for young men to register with the SSS for a possible military draft will end in December 2026. But Congress has chosen to give the SSS a second chance. Over the course of this year, the SSS will be putting in place the regulatory and administrative framework for a new and certain to fail attempt to register potential draftees automatically [sic] on the basis of other existing Federal databases, starting when the “self-registration” requirement ends in December 2026. Attempted automatic registration is the largest change to the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) and U.S. planning and preparation for a draft since 1980. To implement this change in the law, the SSS will need to promulgate new regulations and a series of notices and requests for approval pursuant to Federal laws governing data collection (Paperwork Reduction Act), data sharing (Computer Matching Act) and data use (Privacy Act). That process is just beginning, but will need to be complete by December 2026. The MLTF is monitoring and plans to participate in these administrative proceedings. See the upcoming edition of _On Watch_ for what’s happening with the transition to “automatic” draft registration and the opportunities for MLTF members and other lawyers and legal workers to help. The SSS has a track record of disregard for data protection laws, and is under pressure to expand the misuse of registration data. DOGE has already been given access to the SSS registration database for undisclosed purposes and with no apparent legal basis. The Heritage Foundation wants to weaponize SSS registration data against immigrants by using threats of prosecution for “knowing and willful” non-registration to pressure immigrants to “self-deport”, even though those threats are empty in the absence of evidence of notice and actual knowledge of the registration requirement. The first official SSS rule-making action after the change to “automatic” registration was enacted was a proposal to expand the disclosure of SSS registration records to other Federal, state, and local agencies and private entities for a range of purposes including immigration enforcement. This isn’t overtly related to preparations for “automatic” registration, but is a precursor to the SSS notices and changes in rules that it will require. The comments submitted January 16th in opposition to this SSS proposal for expanded data sharing were co-signed by the MLTF, Jewish C.O. Project, Restore the Fourth (RT4), Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD), Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities (Project YANO), Episcopal Peace Fellowship (EPF), and Center on Conscience & War (CCW). This is a promising start toward a joint campaign against “automatic” draft registration — with all the dangers it poses as a data grab and an enabler of war planning — and for repeal of the MSSA and Selective Service. We invite peace, civil liberties, and privacy advocates to join us in this work.

_This is an official policy statement of the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild._ The Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild condemns the U.S. military attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Mr. and Ms. Maduro by Delta Forces under illegal orders from President Trump. Like the recent U.S. bombing and sinking of small vessels in international or foreign waters and the deliberate killing of civilians on board, the attack violates the United States War Powers Act; Article 2(2) of the United Nations Charter; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials as well as customary international law. Of particular concern is the wide range of U.S. servicemembers involved in these attack, including those now in support and logistics roles. Our FAQ On Refusing Illegal Orders is still in effect, as is our recent Emergency Webinar on Illegal Orders Under Military Law (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm26YhWRdXw&t=4429s), explains that those implementing such orders could still be liable under the UCMJ and international law. **We also call upon the United States Congress to hold hearings to investigate these war crimes, to consider articles of impeachment against President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth, and to enact such additional legislation as may be needed to ensure that such actions will not be repeated.** MLTF still decries the stationing of 10 naval vessels and deployment of 10,000 troops in the region, as well as the stationing of half of this force in Puerto Rico, including F-35 fighter jets, drones, and surveillance planes, as a particularly egregious provocation and misuse of Puerto Rican territory. **We further call for:** * Refusal by foreign military or civilian workers to service, fuel, load, or unload U.S. warships or warplanes. Members of foreign militaries must refuse illegal orders to collaborate in these U.S. crimes. * Withdrawal by foreign governments of military cooperation agreements with the U.S. * Exercise by all foreign governments of their universal jurisdiction to arrest Trump, Hegseth, or any other U.S. officials responsible for these crimes, should they set foot on foreign territory. * Imposition of sanctions forbidding any financial or other dealings with Trump or Hegseth (exactly like the sanctions imposed on Putin et al. for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — anything less would be pure hypocrisy) and the seizure of all Trump Organization properties in foreign countries, pursuant to those sanctions. These developments also come after over 23 years of direct U.S. involvement in coups and coup attempts in Venezuela, routine interference in Venezuelan elections, the imposition of unlawful unilateral coercive measures designed to impoverish the Venezuelan people, the arrest and detention of Venezuelan diplomats, the unlawful confiscation of Venezuelan assets held in foreign banks, and prior attempted landings by US mercenaries. Venezuela holds the world’s largest recorded oil reserves, as well as the fourth-largest natural gas reserves, and U.S. corporations have repeatedly tried to interfere with the country’s independent economic development and trade in resources. The Military Law Task Force and the National Lawyers Guild are concerned that attacks (sometimes only alleged) on vessels in international waters have been considered by the U.S. and other countries to constitute acts of war, and have often led or been the pretext for larger, longer wars, as with the sinking of the Lusitania and the Tonkin Gulf incident, and must therefore be undertaken only with the utmost case for their legality.

_**This FAQ (drafted by members of the MLTF) can also be found in printable PDF format here:Illegal Orders FAQ – 11NOV2025**_ _******DoD Instruction 1325.06 permits a servicemember t****o possess a single copy of this document.**_ * * * **FAQs on refusing illegal orders** **_Version 2 – released November 11, 2025_** **** 1. **Do I have the right to refuse illegal orders?** **** 1. Yes! All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Your oath is to the Constitution (which incorporates international treaties ratified by the U.S. on human rights and the law of war), not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. 1. Under the UCMJ, a servicemember may be punished by court-martial for failure to obey any **_lawful_ **general order or regulation. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say that, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination normally can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal. **** 2. **What are some scenarios in which I might be given illegal orders?** **** None of the scenarios below would _necessarily_ involve illegal orders, but these are all actions that the Commander-In-Chief has discussed publicly as possibilities, which might involve the U.S. military, and that might lead to illegal orders. We don’t know if any of these things will happen, but you may want to think about what you would do if you were given orders to take part in any of these military actions or to take specific actions once deployed, since it may not be the deployment itself that’s illegal. In the U.S.: * Use of military forces to carry out deportations, removals, or detention of immigrants. (Removals to countries where those removed are likely to be tortured could violate the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party.) * Use of military forces against civilian protesters. (The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions, primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”) Outside the U.S.: * attacks on vessels in international or foreign waters. * attacks on surviving crew or passengers of vessels sunk at sea. * invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals. * attack, invasion, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force. * “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries. * attempt to annex Greenland or to attack or invade Canada. * use of nuclear weapons against China or another country. * Torture or mistreatment of civilians, prisoners of war, or other detainees. International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike. The International Court of Justice has also held that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law, although that ruling is not necessarily binding on US courts. Other treaties govern torture, treatment of detainees, stopping and boarding of vessels in international waters, etc. **** 3. **What are some of the reasons and ways that an order might be illegal?** For deployments within the United States, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits use of the military for policing. However, the Administration is developing ways around this law. In addition, the Insurrection Act gives the President the authority to use the military in certain circumstances to suppress any, “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that he or she determines is in violation of federal law. These legal technicalities make it difficult to tell if an order to deploy against U.S. residents is illegal. For deployments outside the United States, the first question becomes whether such a deployment is itself illegal. Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to war is legally questionable. In the examples above, Congress has not declared war. The Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to declare war. However, no US military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war and no court has found any of those illegal or unconstitutional as Presidential powers have expanded considerably over the years. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S. or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful and the question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial. Once deployed, the key is figuring out what a “patently illegal” order is. Prior legal cases suggest that this means any order to commit atrocities. For example, Lieutenant Calley serving in Vietnam was court-martialed for carrying out orders to kill unarmed women and children. A soldier in the Korean War was given an order to rape and steal which was found to be illegal. Under the UCMJ, murder is illegal but killing is not. And, under military rules, a military judge at a court-martial decides whether an order is legal. It is up to the individual servicemember to decide if an order to shoot unarmed civilians should be followed or is “patently illegal.” **** 4. **How can I tell if an order is illegal?** **** The only way to find out whether an order is legal or illegal is to obey, or refuse to obey, and see what is decided after the fact by a military court, a civilian court reviewing a military decision, or a war crimes or human rights tribunal. As a servicemenber subject to the UCMJ, you obey or disobey any order at your peril – which is, of course, one of the risks of enlistment. You can consult a civilian lawyer with expertise in military and international law, but they are very unlikely to be able to give you a definitive answer as to whether a particular order is likely to be found to be legal or illegal. **** 5. **What should I do if I think an order might be illegal?** 1. Know that you are not alone! Other members of the military are also thinking about these issues. Many civilian individuals and organizations support members of the military who refuse illegal orders. 1. Consider making use of your command’s open door policy to respectfully discuss your concerns about the order, as it may result in you being reassigned to less objectionable duty or removed from the deployment roster. 1. Be prepared! Plan ahead. Think about what you will do. Once you receive an order, you may have very little time to decide what to do. Commanders expect you to obey orders – immediately! 1. Talk to a lawyer (in advance, if possible) if you think you might receive an illegal order, you aren’t sure which orders might be illegal, or you aren’t sure about your rights or what you should do. 1. Be very careful about how and with whom you communicate. Don’t use military or government devices to communicate with a lawyer or counselor. You have the right to consult a civilian lawyer about your rights, but the military may try to punish free speech or research about your rights as insubordination. 1. If you decide not to refuse an order, you have the right to report possible illegal orders through the use of (1) a congressional inquiry, (2) an Inspector General complaint, or the UCMJ Article 138 “redress of grievance” process. 1. If this makes you uncomfortable, especially if there are some legal orders you could not in good conscience obey, you may be eligible for discharge or reassignment to noncombatant duty as a conscientious objector or other good discharge. Contact the groups listed below for counseling about this and other ways to get out of the military. 6. **What will happen if I****obey****an illegal order?** You might later be court-martialed for war crimes or charged with violations of the law of war or human rights law. Some treaties provide for “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes, torture, etc., with no statute of limitations, so you could be arrested in any country at any time. And be aware that only Lieutenant Calley, not any of his superiors, was charged for any of the war crimes committed at My Lai. Or it may be that nothing will happen. **** 7. **I or someone I know has been****charged with****refusing to obey an illegal order. Where can I get more information or advice?** **** The Military Law Task Force urges anyone who is deployed or might be facing a future deployment or order or is facing court-martial for refusing an illegal order to call us for a referral to a civilian attorney or counselor to discuss your options. Many of our member lawyers will be willing to do an initial free consultation, and if additional legal assistance is needed, organizations stand ready to help raise needed funds. For more information and resources, please scan the QR code or visit: nlgmltf.org (619-463-2369) girightshotline.org (877-447-4487) aboutfaceveterans.org veteransforpeace.org centeronconscience.org

The U.S. military is sending a contingent of Air Force personnel to Ecuador in support of “anti-drug trafficking” operations. The U.S. embassy in Quito announced the deployment in a statement on X on Dec. 17, saying that the American forces will operate out of the military base at Manta, with the Ecuadorian Air Force. The deployment comes a month after Ecuadorian voters rejected a proposal to lift the country’s ban on foreign military bases by a roughly 2-1 margin. That proposal would have allowed the United States to fully return to the base at Manta, which it vacated in 2009 after a decade of operations. Agence France-Presse first reported on the news. In a statement to Task & Purpose, a spokesperson for U.S. Southern Command said that the “short-term mission will be conducted within the framework of existing bilateral agreements and in accordance with Ecuadorian law.” “This operation is a key component of our enduring security partnership with Ecuador, and it’s aimed at enhancing their military’s capacity to counter narco-terrorism,” the statement continued. SOUTHCOM declined to share how many troops were deploying, citing “operational security concerns.” According to the statement, the mission involves strengthening intelligence collection and counter-narcotics capabilities, but SOUTHCOM also did not say what units the troops will be drawn from or how long the short-term mission will last. The base, located in the city’s Eloy Alfaro International Airport, is along the Pacific coast. ### Top Stories This Week * News ### Marine Corps’ top drill instructor explains the correct way to yell at recruits By Jeff Schogol * News ### Army wants to overhaul dining at basic training By Patty Nieberg * Culture ### 5 questions only a veteran would ask the top generals at West Point and the Naval Academy By Matt White Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa, an ally of the Trump administration, said on social media that the American deployment will help “identify and dismantle drug trafficking routes,” as he steps up a campaign against drug cartels. Dawn reports, citing Ecuador’s defense ministry, that U.S. Air Force planes have already arrived in the country. The move comes as the United States continues to carry out airstrikes on alleged drug boats in the waters around Latin America. Strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since Sept. 2 have killed 104 people according to the Pentagon’s released figures. The ongoing strikes, part of Operation Southern Spear, are aimed at people the Trump administration has labeled “narco-terrorists.” The U.S. Navy has ships operating on both sides of the Panama Canal, including a large armada in the Caribbean. The Pentagon has also moved several aircraft to the region, including F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico and AC-130J Ghostrider gunships to El Salvador. The military is also reviving shuttered bases in the region in Panama and Puerto Rico. Although the U.S. left the base in Manta in 2009, U.S. troops do work with Ecuadorian forces as part of ongoing bilateral security agreements, often in a training or advisory role. Earlier this month U.S. forces supported an operation by the Ecuadorian Army that seized 1.4 tons of cocaine. Noboa had pushed for the lifting of the ban on foreign bases, and toured Manta with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in November prior to the referendum. ### Task & Purpose Video Each week on Tuesdays and Fridays our team will bring you analysis of military tech, tactics, and doctrine. Watch Here ## Nicholas Slayton ### Contributing Editor Nicholas Slayton is a Contributing Editor for Task & Purpose. In addition to covering breaking news, he writes about history, shipwrecks, and the military’s hunt for unidentified anomalous phenomenon (formerly known as UFOs). * * * *

Several Navy SEAL members are being disciplined after investigators uncovered alleged racist messages they sent in a group chat. According to CBS News , 18 members were disciplined for allegedly sending racist messages that were sent to a fellow Black SEAL between 2021 and 2024. Following the investigation, the Navy demoted some of the members, imposed forfeiture of pay for others, and issued formal letters of counseling to some. What racist messages did the Black Navy SEAL receive? CBS News obtained documents that revealed several racist memes that targeted a Black SEAL member in a group chat. One of the memes, sent in 2022, showed a caption that read, “Slave in Chains.” Another 2022 meme was titled “Monkey Face,” showing the Black SEAL looking like a monkey with a distorted face. In 2023, the SEALs sent a meme which compared their peer to Radio, the character from the real-life based film of the same name starring Cuba Gooding Jr. The Navy launched an investigation after the Black...

President Donald Trump’s military occupations of U.S. cities have cost nearly half a billion dollars, according to an expert estimate provided exclusively to The Intercept. The current $473 million price tag now includes $172 million spent in Los Angeles, where troops arrived in June; almost $270 million for the occupation of Washington, D.C., which began in August; nearly $15 million for Portland, Oregon, which was announced in September; and more than $3 million for Memphis, Tennessee, and almost $13 million for Chicago, which both began last month. The National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group, tallied these totals from open-source information and costs-per-day estimates supplied to The Intercept by the office of Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. The skyrocketing price of Trump’s occupations come as the president threatens to deploy additional troops to more American cities to quell dissent and turn America into a full-blown police state. Trump recently said he could “send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines — I could send anybody I wanted” into urban America — while threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act, one of the executive branch’s most potent, oldest, and rarely used emergency powers. He has specifically threatened to surge troops into Baltimore, New York City, Oakland, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Seattle to put down supposed rebellions and to aid law enforcement agencies, despite falling crime numbers and pushback by local officials. Troops are also expected to be deployed to New Orleans later this month. Despite the Trump administration’s unprecedented use of the military within the U.S., it has kept even basic details about domestic troop deployments, including the costs, secret. > “Our National Guard troops did not sign up to police their own neighbors.” “If Donald Trump is burning through hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on his authoritarian campaign of intimidation, the American people deserve to know about it. Federal judges across the country — including a Trump appointee — have ruled that these deployments are not justified, and thus not only wasteful, but also illegal and unconstitutional, and our National Guard troops did not sign up to police their own neighbors or be used as political pawns,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., told The Intercept. “Trump’s continued abuse of our military to intimidate Americans in their own neighborhoods — the very same Americans he expects to foot the bill for these deployments — must end immediately.” Duckworth was one of 11 senators who asked the Congressional Budget Office late last month to provide an independent assessment of the projected expense of deploying federalized National Guard units for “domestic security operations,” including the activation, deployment, compensation and sustainment costs. The CBO did not say whether it will provide the requested assessment, telling The Intercept that it is “unable to respond to external inquiries due to a lapse in appropriated funds.” ## Related ### Documenting ICE Agents’ Brutal Use of Force in LA Immigration Raids Over the last six months, a Trump administration urban occupation playbook has emerged. In city after city, armed federal agents storm into neighborhoods, violating people’s rights. When American citizens exercise their First Amendment right to protest the authoritarian measures, federal agents respond with violence. While such protests have remained overwhelmingly peaceful and have never overwhelmed the capacity of local law enforcement, Trump has repeatedly proclaimed himself unable to enforce the law and seized command of National Guard members over the objections of state governors to quash dissent. A federal judge in Oregon on Friday evening ruled that Trump illegally ordered state National Guard units to Portland, issuing a sweeping injunction that restrains the president’s claimed authority to deploy Guard members over a governor’s objection. In a 106-page opinion, District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that Trump’s federalization of 200 Oregon National Guard members and deployments of federalized California and Texas Guard troops to an ICE facility in Portland exceeded his statutory authority and violated the 10th Amendment’s protections for state sovereignty. “[T]here was neither ‘a rebellion or danger of a rebellion’ nor was the President ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States’ in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard,” she wrote. A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit have so far blocked Trump’s attempt to federalize National Guard troops and deploy them into Chicago and surrounding counties. The Trump administration filed an emergency stay request last month with the Supreme Court and, on Monday, implored the justices to show “extraordinary deference” to the president as commander-in-chief, claiming Trump could have already deployed active-duty troops. “The standing military was undoubtedly an available option to quash the violent resistance to federal immigration enforcement,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court. In September, District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the Trump administration’s ongoing Los Angeles occupation is illegal, noting that while troops were deployed “ostensibly to quell a rebellion,” there was “no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.” ## Most Read Longtime Paid FBI Informant Was Instrumental in Terror Case Against “Turtle Island Liberation Front” Noah Hurowitz, Trevor Aaronson NY Times’ David Brooks Said There’s Too Much Focus on Jeffrey Epstein. Here He Is Hanging With Epstein. Noah Hurowitz Ousted Air Force Special Ops Command Chief Faces Child Sexual Abuse Material Charges Austin Campbell Members of the National Guard have been activated or deployed under Title 10 authority or federal control in at least seven states — Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas — as occupation forces or to conduct anti-immigrant border operations. The occupation of D.C. is technically a Title 32 deployment — a federal-state hybrid — but since the capital has no governor, the D.C. National Guard’s chain of command runs from its commanding general to the secretary of the Army, to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, to Trump. At Trump’s urging, military leaders have recently ordered the National Guard in every state to develop a “quick reaction force” — trained to combat civil disturbances and riots — that can be ready to deploy with just hours’ notice. The units, in total, will reportedly number around 23,000 troops. “It’s extremely concerning, on so many levels, that in less than six months since Trump first activated troops in LA, domestic military occupations are escalating — despite their dubious legality — and expenses are already approaching half a billion dollars,” said Hanna Homestead of the National Priorities Project, who provided the estimates on the deployment costs. “Especially given all the GOP’s massive social spending cuts that are stripping health care and food benefits from millions of families, and the fact that the Pentagon is reportedly planning to ramp up use of National Guard troops for an impending nationwide crackdown.” Durbin’s office provided The Intercept with data from the Senate Armed Services Committee that placed the price tag for the Los Angeles deployment at $170 million as of mid-October, as well as an estimate for the typical deployment cost for 500 National Guard member for a period of 60 days: approximately $323,333 per day, or $647 per soldier per day. The National Priorities Project used these figures and open-source information about the size and length of deployments to provide cost estimates through November 15. For months, the Pentagon has refused to provide figures on the mounting expense of federal troop deployments. “We won’t know the total cost until the mission concludes,” a Pentagon spokesperson told The Intercept in July, when forces were only deployed to Los Angeles. Recent follow-up requests for further information have gone unanswered. > “People don’t need troops in their backyard — they need health care, housing, and cheaper groceries.” “Why is the Trump administration refusing to be transparent about how much money it’s spending on this political stunt?” asked Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., another of the lawmakers who requested the CBO analysis. “People don’t need troops in their backyard — they need health care, housing, and cheaper groceries.” Trump has teased using urban occupations to hone the skills of the armed forces. “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military,” he told a gathering of hundreds of generals and admirals. Trump has also justified his push to militarize urban America through hyperbole, dog-whistle politics and the peddling of baseless lies. Trump said protesters in Los Angeles were “animals” and “a foreign enemy,” calling the city “a trash heap” with “entire neighborhoods under control” of criminals. Trump described Chicago as a “war zone.” He similarly claims that Portland is “war-ravaged” and in a state of rebellion. “Portland has been on fire for years. … I really think that’s really criminal insurrection,” Trump told reporters. He said D.C.’s homicide rate is higher than “the worst places on Earth.” (Not only did Trump use older, misleading statistics, but even cherry-picking the data, at least 49 other cities across the world had higher homicide rates.) He even fabricated a story of hand-to-hand combat between troops and child gangsters from the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua on the streets of the capital. For weeks, the White House has failed to respond to questions about this fictional incident. ## We’re independent of corporate interests — and powered by members. Join us. Become a member ## Join Our Newsletter Thank You For Joining! Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. Will you take the next step to support our independent journalism by becoming a member of The Intercept? I'm in Become a member By signing up, I agree to receive emails from The Intercept and to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. ## Join Our Newsletter ## Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act, a bedrock 19th-century law banning the use of federal troops to execute domestic law enforcement; Posse Comitatus is seen as fundamental to the democratic tradition in the United States. “The Insurrection Act has been used routinely by presidents. I haven’t chosen to use it, but … if I needed it, I could do it. And if I needed it, that would mean I could bring in the Army, the Marines, I could bring in whoever I want,” Trump told “60 Minutes” recently. ## Related ### The Sinister Reason Trump Is Itching to Invoke the Insurrection Act Trump seems to believe that the Insurrection Act affords him almost unlimited power to wield the military against Americans and has repeatedly made wild and erroneous claims about the law. Trump claimed, for example, that an unnamed president used the Insurrection Act “28 times during the course of a presidency,” but no president has invoked the Act on more occasions than Ulysses S. Grant’s six times, according to research by New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. The act and the similar prior laws have been invoked on only 30 occasions in U.S. history. Trump also claims that “50 percent of the presidents” have invoked the act when only 17 of 45 presidents — less than 38 percent — have invoked the act or its precursor laws, according to the Brennan Center. The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the president’s confusion about the act. “The Insurrection Act is an extremely powerful tool, but it’s not a blank check. The president can deploy active-duty troops or federalized National Guard forces under the law only if its criteria are met. And while those criteria appear quite broad, the Department of Justice has long taken the position that they are limited by the Constitution and tradition,” Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s liberty and national security program, told The Intercept. “Properly interpreted, the law can only be used in extreme circumstances that simply aren’t present in Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, or anywhere else in the United States.” The president isn’t the only one peddling misinformation about federal troop deployments. U.S. Northern Command — which oversees federal troop deployments — provides a link to an official National Guard document on “Federalizations of the Guard for Domestic Missions through 2025,” which details deployments of state militia and National Guardsmen from the 1790s to the present. Although an attached chart shows that in six of 11 instances, troops were deployed without the consent of a state’s governor, the document nonetheless asserts: “In each of these instances, the governor requested federal forces to assist in maintaining order.” Goitein scoffed at the claim. “That’s simply not true,” she said, pointing to Little Rock, Arkansas. The document cites President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1957 deployment of National Guard and active-duty troops to enforce desegregation in the schools as an example of an instance in which a governor requested and received help from federal forces. “Far from requesting this deployment, the governor had deployed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent desegregation,” she explained. “Eisenhower actually federalized the National Guard for the purposes of ordering them to stand down. To portray this famous standoff as an incident in which the governor asked for federal help is laughable.” (The document even notes that Gov. Orval Faubus “is famously quoted as having called his own National Guard ‘occupation troops’ after they were federalized.”) > “Protest plays an essential role in our democracy and President Trump is hellbent on suppressing it.” Trump’s pricey urban occupations come amid a welter of authoritarian acts, including a crackdown on domestic enemies and an undeclared war in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean in which the president claims the right to summarily execute persons he deems to be “narco-terrorists.” Trump unilaterally decreed that 24 “designated terrorist organizations,” or DTOs are in a state of “non-international armed conflict” with the United States. In addition to this secret list of foreign groups, Trump has also ordered his administration to compile a “domestic terrorist organization” list made up of his political foes, despite the fact there is no legal mechanism for labeling exclusively domestic organizations as terrorist groups. Under Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, or NSPM-7, he instructed his administration to target U.S. progressive groups and their donors as well as political activists who profess undefined anti-American, anti-fascist, or anti-Christian sentiments. The White House has not responded to repeated requests, for more than a week, to clarify whether those who belong to groups on the administration’s secret “domestic terrorist organization” list are subject to summary execution as are members of groups on the administration’s secret “designated terrorist organizations” list. Trump’s authoritarian measures have been bolstered by his half-billion-dollar effort to employ troops to chill dissent in America’s cities. “Protest plays an essential role in our democracy and President Trump is hellbent on suppressing it,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “The president is attempting to normalize military policing of protest, but as the founders of this country made abundantly clear, turning troops on civilians is an intolerable threat to our liberties. President Trump is imperiling our First Amendment rights, and we urge the court to deny his application.” Share * Copy link * Share on Facebook * Share on Bluesky * Share on X * Share on LinkedIn * Share on WhatsApp _IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT._ What we’re seeing right now from Donald Trump is a full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government. This is not hyperbole. Court orders are being ignored. MAGA loyalists have been put in charge of the military and federal law enforcement agencies. The Department of Government Efficiency has stripped Congress of its power of the purse. News outlets that challenge Trump have been banished or put under investigation. Yet far too many are still covering Trump’s assault on democracy like politics as usual, with flattering headlines describing Trump as “unconventional,” “testing the boundaries,” and “aggressively flexing power.” The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments, billionaire oligarchs, and backsliding democracies around the world. We understand the challenge we face in Trump and the vital importance of press freedom in defending democracy. ## We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us? $15 $25 $50 $100 $5 $8 $10 $15 One Time Monthly Donate **_IT’S BEEN A DEVASTATING_** year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history. We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking. In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow. **That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?** ## We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us? $15 $25 $50 $100 $5 $8 $10 $15 One Time Monthly Donate **_I’M BEN MUESSIG,_** The Intercept’s editor-in-chief. It’s been a devastating year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history. We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking. In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow. **That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?** ## We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us? $15 $25 $50 $100 $5 $8 $10 $15 One Time Monthly Donate ## Contact the author: Nick Turse nick.turse@theintercept.com @nickturse on X ## Related ### Are You on Trump’s List of Domestic Terrorists? There’s No Way to Know. ### Kat Abughazaleh on the Right to Protest ### Ignoring Court Ruling, Trump Sends Troops to Portland to Break Imagined Antifa “Siege” ### Trump’s Chicago Occupation Could Cost Four Times More Than Housing City Homeless ## Latest Stories Voices ### Anti-Palestinian Billionaires Can Now Control What TikTok Users See Sunjeev Bery - Dec. 21 Users need to revolt against what will very likely be an even more widespread effort to censor voices critical of Israel. Chilling Dissent ### StopAntisemitism Takes Credit for Getting Hundreds Fired. A Music Teacher Is Suing. Jonah Valdez - Dec. 20 Known for targeting celebrities like Ms. Rachel, the pro-Israel blacklist also goes after private individuals who post in solidarity with Palestine. The War on Immigrants ### ICE Hires Immigrant Bounty Hunters From Private Prison Company GEO Group Sam Biddle - Dec. 19 BI Incorporated, a subsidiary of for-profit prison company GEO Group, will help ICE pinpoint the locations of immigrants. Join The Conversation

President Donald Trump's one-time $1,776 payment promise for U.S. service members offers questions about which troops actually qualify and how it would impact existing pay and benefits.

This week’s “Elie v. US” explores the authoritarian threat beneath Trump’s bonuses for military families. Plus, a case for getting rid of the Second Amendment.

Widespread protests across Germany are a sign that the new military conscription legislation will face fierce noncooperation.

I have been called to testify at courts-martial as an expert witness on servicemembers’ duty to disobey unlawful orders.