Eleven retired generals warned that recent and proposed National Guard deployments could “undermine” the military’s reputation as a trusted institution and harm troop morale.
“A military that is thrust into aggressive interactions with civilians in a politicized context will, over time, inevitably lose the respect and trust that it currently has among the American people,” the former generals wrote in a brief filed in a California court. “This disapproval from fellow Americans can only exacerbate feelings of isolation and low morale for the military deployed.”
The former general officers, mostly major and lieutenant generals in the Army, each have military careers spanning more than three decades, and have a range of experiences, from leading troops in combat to holding administrative positions within the National Guard and Reserve, and deploying for domestic emergencies and disaster response.
In early September, a judge ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles to help law enforcement quell immigration related protests. The amicus brief by the former officers was filed in a California appeals court to urge judges to uphold the court’s injunction that ruled against Trump’s LA deployment.
While the brief was filed in a case focused on the LA mission, the former generals warned of potential “harm” that could arise from the Guard’s current deployment to Washington, D.C., and potential activations that Trump has hinted at for New York City, Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago, and Oakland, California.
Top Stories This Week
The former general officers argue that the federalization of the National Guard could erode the military’s apolitical reputation since troops have been put in an “untenable position” with a deployment that has been “deeply politicized.” The filed brief was led by the Vet Voice Foundation, a veteran-led, non-partisan organization.
“As an organization that supports military members and families, and former senior military leaders, [we] recognize that those who choose to join the National Guard or regular military are primarily driven out of a desire to serve America and their fellow citizens, not to be turned inwards against them. Having to do so harms military morale, which is an essential part of the effectiveness of any military,” they wrote.
There’s also the potential for troops to feel more “internal conflict” about participating in domestic issues versus a foreign deployment, they said, citing analysis by a political scientist specializing in civil-military relations.
The issue of troop morale, the officers wrote, could be negatively affected as civilian perceptions of the military change. The brief cites Gallup poll results that show in 2025, 62% of respondents said that a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in the military.
But the military’s recent use in highly politicized contexts would lessen those levels of trust over time, the general officers argued, citing The New York Times reporting on negative public reactions to the deployment of troops to Los Angeles and low morale among those troops themselves. They compared it to the typically positive reactions from National Guard assistance in fighting California wildfires.
“In a nation of laws, not military rule, setting a precedent that allows the executive to deploy the military to any protest across the country will severely harm the military as a trusted and nonpartisan institution,” they wrote in the brief. “It is vital for the Court to step in now.”
