As the nation continues to protest the death of George Floyd and the racial inequality that the event exposed, it seems as though there are a great many within our federal government looking to distance themselves from the White House right now.

This isn’t necessarily anything new; Donald Trump has been a divisive figure from the very moment that he entered the political realm.  What’s striking about this week’s anti-Trump statements are just where they are coming from, with many of the nation’s more prominent military figures speaking up.

Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, apologized Thursday for his role in President Donald Trump’s church photo op last week, saying he shouldn’t have been at the scene.

“As many of you saw, the result of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society,” Milley said in a prerecorded address at a commencement ceremony at the National Defense University in Washington. “I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”

“As a commissioned, uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it,” he continued. “We who wear the cloth of our nation come from the people of our nation. And we must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military that is so deeply rooted in the very essence of our Republic. And this is not easy. It takes time and work and effort. But it may be the most important thing each and every one of us does every single day.”

The statement comes just a week after Defense Secretary Mark Esper clashed with President Trump over the use of federal troops in civilian situations, and after DC Mayor Muriel Bowser invoked the Third Amendment to displace National Guard troops from hotels in the nation’s capital.

Americans are taking a good, hard look inward in 2020, and this has sparked a new push to erase the history of the Confederate States of America, which secede from the nation for a brief period fifteen decades ago.

The Confederate Flag has long been a controversial symbol in America, with some displaying the “stars and bars” in an historically-aware manner, while others continue to gravitate toward its use as a symbol of rebellion and/or hate.  It means a lot of things to a lot of people, and it has remained a sore spot in the south on account of that distinction.

But now, as cities around the country are pulling Confederate memorials out of the ground in public parks at breakneck speed, there is a new push to completely separate this new American unity from the division of the past – and there are some big names jumping on that bandwagon as well.

Former CIA director David Petraeus argues in a new opinion piece that names of Confederate “traitors” should be removed from U.S. military bases.

The retired Army general writes in The Atlantic that “it is time to remove the names of traitors like Benning and Bragg from our country’s most important military installations,” referring to the training bases named after Gen. Henry Benning and Gen. Braxton Bragg, who Petraeus argued were subpar military leaders “who left much to be desired.”

“These bases are, after all, federal installations, home to soldiers who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” the 67-year-old wrote. “The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States, and for the right to enslave others, is inescapable to anyone paying attention. Now, belatedly, is the moment for us to pay such attention.”

He continued…

“We do not live in a country to which Braxton Bragg, Henry L. Benning, or Robert E. Lee can serve as an inspiration. Acknowledging this fact is imperative. Should it fail to do so, the Army, which prides itself on leading the way in perilous times, will be left to fight a rearguard action against a more inclusive American future, one that fulfills the nation’s founding promise,” he concludes.

The Marine Corps has recently banned depictions of the Confederate Flag at their installations, recognizing in a statement that violent extremists had been co-opting the symbol for their own nefarious purposes.

In America, we are guaranteed a number of freedoms that the rest of the world does not have the luxury of enjoying.  This is the very backbone of our nation as a whole, and it’s what makes the United States stand out on the world’s stage.

But those freedoms can and will be eroded if we’re not careful, including our right to privacy.  That is why a number of lawmakers on Capitol Hill are demanding answers from the Department of Homeland Security after it was revealed that they had used military-style drones to keep tabs on Americans who were peacefully protesting the death of George Floyd.

In a June 5 letter to DHS acting Secretary Chad Wolf, the lawmakers, led by Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., suggested the drone deployment violated federal law and questioned whether the agency captured full-motion video of the protesters or employed facial recognition technology on them.

The lawmakers called DHS’ deployment a “gross abuse of authority” and demanded “a full accounting of its activities by June 11.”

“The drone that was flown on May 29, 2020, was reportedly also flown far outside the bounds of [Customs and Border Protection’s] jurisdiction. Federal law authorizes CBP to conduct its missions within a ‘reasonable distance,’ not to exceed more than 100 air miles inland, from an external boundary of the United States,” the letter states.

This is precisely the sort of thing that would have concerned dystopian writer George Orwell, whose “Big Brother” is looking more like prophecy and less like fiction every day.

Our nation’s capital has never experienced something like this, as enormous crowds continue to gather daily and nightly to protest racial inequality and the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis Police.

During these 11 days of civili disobedience, a number of agitating extremist groups have invaded the protests as the sun goes down, hoping to incite as much chaos as they possibly can, possibly in pursuit of something as egregious as a Civil War.

Now, in what appears to be an effort to deescalate the situation, the Pentagon is taking a drastic stance on the arming of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital.

The Pentagon has told Washington D.C.’s National Guard and guardsmen from other states who have are in the nation’s capital not to use guns or ammunition.

The order came from Defense Secretary Mark Esper and made without consulting the White House, The Washington Post reported, and it’s seen as a sign of de-escalation of the federal response to protests that sprung up in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

And that’s not all:

Meanwhile, the Pentagon will be sending back the remaining 900 active-duty troops who were sent to the Washington, D.C., area to potentially respond to civil unrest, and they are expected to start heading back to their home bases.

The official said on condition of anonymity that Esper had made the decision and the troops would be heading back to Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Drum in New York.

While the troops were in the National Capital Region, they were not deployed to Washington and were on standby in case they were needed.

It’s a gamble that America desperately needs to pay off.

If anyone knows anything about “fightin’ words”, it’s James Mattis.

The highly decorated military man, known by the nicknames “Mad Dog” and “CHAOS” , (meaning “colonel has another outstanding suggestion”), took to The Atlantic this week to decry President Trump’s use of force against protesters in Lafayette Park.

“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis wrote.

He said he never dreamed troops “would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people —does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us,” Mattis wrote in a statement published by The Atlantic. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.”

And then came this exclamation point.

“We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution,” Mattis said.

President Trump took to Twitter soon after the Mattis piece was making the rounds to remind the nation that Mattis was “fired” from his White House post, and to say that the “military” was not his strong suit.

Mattis has maintained that he resigned from the Trump White House, which has many wondering if Mattis is just another swamp creature looking for revenge.

President Donald Trump said that if the liberal Democrat governors out there didn’t put an end to the rioting, he’d send in the U.S. Army. Here is the legal basis for such an action.

Steve Vladeck, the A. Dalton Cross Professor in Law at the University of Texas School of Law, posted an informative Twitter thread laying out the legal justification for sending in the U.S. Army to quell riots.

“There’s a fair amount of disinformation and misinformation going around about the federal government’s legal authority to use troops to help respond to the unrest in Minneapolis,” Vladeck tweeted on Saturday.

The law prof went on to lay out the legal case for using federal forces to stop rioters:

1. "Isn't the military already on the ground"?

A: Yes, the MN National Guard has been deployed by Gov. Walz. But the Guard wears (at least) two hats. Right now, it's wearing its "state" hat, subject to the control solely of the Governor, which is uncontroversial.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 30, 2020

2a. As relevant here, the Insurrection Act (https://t.co/XlSIdEvBfi) and 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which governs federalization of Guard troops (https://t.co/PhRPmIjg7n).

When these statutes are (properly) invoked, there is no Posse Comitatus problem with domestic use of the military.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 30, 2020

4. "But if the Governor has already called out the National Guard, doesn't that block them from being federalized?"

A: No. The authorities to federalize the Guard do not depend on what they were doing beforehand; there may just be less *need* to do so if they're already on site.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 30, 2020

5a. Historically, the real checks on abuse of these authorities have been political. The Insurrection Act hasn't been invoked since 1992—largely because domestic use of the military is generally unpopular.

But it's not implausible to argue that these statutes *could* apply now.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 30, 2020

5c. There's a lot more to say on the topic, but I don't want to belabor the key points.

If you're curious about the broader historical and constitutional foundation for these authorities, see this paper I wrote back in 2004:https://t.co/GKRF5phBKg

Thanks for reading!!

/end

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 30, 2020

See also:https://t.co/kcjEEr51z7 https://t.co/pD4cRvClQJ

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 30, 2020

Whether it is a good idea to send in the U.S. Army is far more of a political question, than a legal one. As you can see, there are legal provisions to do so.

Still it usually proves politically unpopular enough to prevent presidents from resorting to this option.

But Trump is not really the “usual” politician, is he?

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

When Donald Trump promised to be the law and order President, he wasn’t kidding.

After protests in Washington DC turned violent on Monday night, the Commander in Chief made a major move to help quell the disturbances by bringing some heavy equipment into Washington DC.

An 82nd Airborne Division’s Immediate Response Force battalion arrived to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland Monday evening for a civil unrest mission in the nation’s capitol, according to sources.

The IRF battalion — which deployed to Iraq earlier this year to quell Iran-backed violence — brought approximately 750 soldiers, ten Black Hawk helicopters, and four Chinooks, according to sources. The helicopters are utility, not attack, and are used to transport troops short distances.

And that’s not all…

Trump also fully-activated the D.C. National Guard on Sunday, to respond to the mass unrest in Washington. Rioters burned buildings, including a historic church just one block away from the White House, injured Secret Service officers, and engaged in looting and violence.

Violence has engulfed what began as more peaceful protests last week, over the death of George Floyd after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck.

Furthermore, “bayonets” was briefly trending on Twitter after an Associated Press reporter revealed that the devices were also issued to the 82nd Airborne.

Also: 700 members of the 82nd are at Joint Base Andrews and Fort Belvoir. 1,400 more soldiers are ready to be mobilized within an hour. Soldiers are armed and have riot gear. They also were issued bayonets—standard issue but some feel could be inflammatory https://t.co/Ieo86bc4yF

— James LaPorta (@JimLaPorta) June 2, 2020