(Washington, DC) – Recent statements made by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump during a joint address to military leaders on September 30, 2025, have raised serious alarms about the potential deployment of combat forces for domestic law enforcement, according to Human Rights Watch. This alarming trend, if realized, would represent a blatant violation of U.S. law and pose significant risks to human rights across the nation.
During his address at a Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, President Trump suggested that the military should be utilized to tackle a purported “war from within,” asserting that U.S. cities could serve as “training grounds” for armed forces. This rhetoric follows the administration’s recent controversial actions, including the unauthorized use of lethal force against vessels from Venezuela, and a memorandum issued just days prior that directed investigations into civil society groups for alleged ties to “terroristic conspiracies.”
Tanya Greene, U.S. program director at Human Rights Watch, expressed profound concern over these developments. “The administration first says that it wants the military to be more lethal and less accountable and then threatens to deploy troops in a show of force to U.S. cities,” she warned. “This is a recipe for disaster.”
The foundational legal framework governing the relationship between the military and domestic law enforcement is outlined in several U.S. laws, notably the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the U.S. Army or Air Force for domestic law enforcement unless expressly authorized by Congress. Despite this, the Trump administration has previously deployed military forces within U.S. cities, relying on a patchwork of contested legal justifications, including a presidential memorandum aimed at federalizing National Guard units and claims of protecting federal property.
Hegseth’s remarks have further fueled concerns, as he laid out plans that advocate for “maximum lethality” in military operations, along with a push to lower standards for misconduct and to eliminate what he deemed “politically correct” rules of engagement. This combative rhetoric not only risks fostering an environment ripe for human rights abuses but also raises fears about the potential for illegal military deployments within the country.
While international human rights law does not outright ban the use of military forces in law enforcement roles, such deployments are widely recognized as problematic. Military personnel are primarily trained for combat rather than for the nuanced and restraint-focused nature of law enforcement that respects human rights. This mismatch significantly heightens the risk of severe violations of rights.
Historical precedents in the U.S. illustrate the dangers of militarizing domestic law enforcement. A tragic example occurred during the Vietnam War era, when National Guard troops shot unarmed students at Kent State University, resulting in four fatalities. Such events serve as stark reminders of the potential consequences when military forces are used in civilian contexts.
Human Rights Watch has documented numerous instances across the globe where military forces have been deployed to suppress dissent or perform law enforcement tasks, often leading to egregious human rights violations. In Zimbabwe, for instance, military forces employed excessive force against protesters in early 2019. Similarly, in Mexico, military involvement in combating crime has been linked to extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture.
Brazil has also seen military forces engaged in law enforcement committing abuses that go largely unpunished, while countries like Myanmar, Egypt, and Thailand have witnessed brutal crackdowns on protests perpetrated by military personnel.
The implications of Hegseth’s stated plan to eliminate anonymous complaints and restrict internal dissent within the military could effectively silence whistleblowers and victims of harassment, undermining the protections guaranteed under U.S. law and compromising service members’ ability to seek justice.
Human Rights Watch urges state and local leaders, particularly governors with command over National Guard units, to vocally oppose any attempts to transform the military into a domestic policing entity. Congressional leaders from both parties must also reaffirm the expectation that the U.S. military adhere to the highest standards of professionalism and uphold protections for whistleblowers.
“The Trump administration has conjured up a series of absurd fabrications with serious human rights consequences during its time in office,” Greene concluded. “There is no reason and no legal justification for any disastrous use of military forces on U.S. soil.”
