The video statement reminded military members of their obligation to not follow unlawful orders. What followed was a campaign of twists and turns to punish the exercise of free speech. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pursued one of those members, Senator Mark Kelly, for what President Trump called “seditious” behavior. Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy Captain, was the only one of the six who is a retired officer receiving pay for his military career service.

The latest episode played out in court on May 7, 2026, in the appeal of a lower court decision in Kelly v. Hegseth, the Senator’s federal lawsuit challenging the Pentagon’s attempts to censure and demote Kelly, reducing his retirement rank and pay.

The appeals court oral arguments in Kelly v. Hegseth showed exactly why NSL4A launched the “We Served. We Can Speak” campaign. Government power should not be used to chill lawful speech by those who served, as shown in the pursuit of Kelly.

Kelly v Hegseth oral arguments at Appeals Court of the DC Circuit news report from May 7, 2026. (Screen grab)

NSL4A’s aim is to protect the Constitution and the freedoms that we serve to defend. The principles of the campaign are that:

• Government authority must not be used to intimidate lawful speech;

• Retired service members retain a protected right to speak following their service; and

• Safeguarding institutional norms is essential to upholding the Constitution.

The effort to punish Senator Kelly has been a seminal moment in the question about speech rights for retired military members, but the NSL4A “We Served. We Can Speak” campaign is about larger questions. It seeks to clarify that First Amendment rights are not given up in the case of retired military members and that the government cannot weaponize legal and administrative punishments to chill speech.

In support of its position, NSL4A filed an amicus brief in Kelly v. Hegseth, urging the appeals court to uphold the First Amendment rights of retired military personnel and reject the government’s effort to subject retirees’ public speech to the same restrictions applied to active-duty service members.

NSL4A members were in court to observe the proceedings, and some shared their reactions, like Retired Army Major General Randy Manner on CNN.

Another observer, NSL4A member Ed Burley, a retired Army Brigadier General and career DOJ prosecutor, shared his perspectives. Noting the government’s argument that the Secretary of Defense has the ultimate authority to regulate military retirees’ speech, Burly sees the case as part of a broader attempt to chill public discussion by retired military officers about the legality and morality of current military operations.

Although no final ruling has been issued, two of the three appeals court judges appeared to agree with Kelly’s arguments in the case, according to Megan Mineiro of the NYTimes.

Members of National Security Leaders for America showed their support for Senator Mark Kelly at the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on May 7, 2026

Whatever the result of Kelly v. Hegseth in the courts, NSL4A is committed to the “We Served. We Can Speak” campaign’s principles.

The campaign matters because: retired service members serve as trusted voices within their communities; their perspectives strengthen public understanding and accountability; and respect for these voices helps sustain trust in public institutions.

The campaign includes the voices of NSL4A members like Air Force retired Major General Barbara Falkenberry.

“Our country benefits when retired military officers speak up, especially about national security issues where lives are at stake.”

Another video showed retired U.S. Marine Chief Warrant Officer 5 Richard Galvez.

“Silencing informed voices doesn’t make America safer, it makes public debate weaker and national security decisions worse. This is bigger than one person. It’s about protecting the Constitution and protecting the freedoms we served to defend.”

The National Security Leaders for America “We Served. We Can Speak” campaign is about protecting the Constitution and the freedoms that we served to defend.

You can support this effort by sharing this message and by learning more about NSL4A and the campaign:

NSL4A “We Served. We Can Speak” Campaign Page

Maj. Gen. Steven Lepper (Ret.), a former Air Force judge advocate, discusses his military legal background and his role in the Former JAGs Working Group, which formed after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired top military lawyers. He says the group united to counter dangerous messaging suggesting that military lawyers hinder operations or that law shouldn’t constrain warfare.

Lepper sharply criticizes the legality of the recent U.S. strikes on alleged narco-trafficking boats in the Caribbean, arguing:

• There is no “non-international armed conflict.” Drug runners are civilians committing crimes, not combatants.

• Using lethal military force here amounts to extrajudicial killing under international law and murder under U.S. law.

• The reported “double tap” strike is especially unlawful. Survivors of a destroyed vessel are considered shipwrecked persons who must be protected — not targeted.

He rejects Secretary Hegseth’s claims about removing “stupid rules of engagement,” saying that what separates honorable military service from murder or terrorism is adherence to law and the principle of honor — something he believes is absent from Hegseth’s framing.

Major General Lepper is the former Air Force Deputy Judge Advocate General and leads the Former JAGs Working Group in addition to being a member of NSL4A.

Testimony by Honorable Jason W. Forrester

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, Manpower and Personnel

Good morning, Council Members.

I’m Jason Forrester, and I’m representing National Security Leaders for America, a bipartisan, all-volunteer organization of national security leaders established in 2021 to counter growing threats to our democracy.

Today, I’ll address the dangerous possibility of deploying National Guard troops for domestic policing in New York City.

Before I get into my presentation, allow me to offer some relevant background. Starting almost 20 years ago, I was an advocate for the National Guard in the context of their heavy utilization during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Later, I was appointed by President Obama to serve as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense where I developed manpower and personnel policies for the Guard and Reserve.

Now to the heart of my testimony:

Misusing the National Guard to police our streets is dangerous to our democracy, ineffective at reducing crime, and potentially unlawful.

FIRST, IT’S DANGEROUS.

Using the Guard for policing blurs the line between military and civilian authority. Our troops swear to defend the nation against external threats, not to patrol our neighborhoods.

A recent Pentagon memo establishes something deeply troubling: a permanent, federally monitored civil-disturbance force -- 500 personnel per state, identical riot gear, and monthly federal reporting. This weakens the authority of governors and normalizes what should be exceptional.

Federally commanded armed soldiers on city streets chill free speech, intimidate residents, and discourage civic engagement. When we normalize such patrols at home, we weaken the trust that keeps our democracy strong.

SECOND, IT’S INEFFECTIVE.

Guard units are not trained for community-oriented police work.

Also, the data doesn’t support deployment since NYC is experiencing declining violent crime rates.

Effectively addressing crime requires well-funded civilian solutions. Deploying troops ignores root causes and risks making matters worse.

THIRD, IT’S POTENTIALLY UNLAWFUL.

The Posse Comitatus Act makes it a crime to use the military as a domestic police force. The President can federalize the Guard under the Insurrection Act, but only for narrow conditions.

Ordinary street crime doesn’t meet this threshold. A federal judge in Los Angeles found Guard deployment “improper” because there was no rebellion and civilian law enforcement was capable. In addition, cross-state deployments without a governor’s consent violate state sovereignty.

CONCLUSION

Council Members, domestic use of the military must not outpace the law.

New York City deserves real public safety solutions—not a military occupation.

I urge you to support law-bounded, governor-led actions.

Prioritize de-escalation over coercion.

Demand transparency and oversight.

The National Guard should defend the nation, not patrol its neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council Members.

I’m Jason Forrester, and I’m representing National Security Leaders for America, a bipartisan, all-volunteer organization of national security leaders established in 2021 to counter growing threats to our democracy.

Today, I’ll address the dangerous possibility of deploying National Guard troops for domestic policing in New York City.

Before I get into my presentation, allow me to offer some relevant background. Starting almost 20 years ago, I was an advocate for the National Guard in the context of their heavy utilization during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Later, I was appointed by President Obama to serve as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense where I developed manpower and personnel policies for the Guard and Reserve.

///

Now to the heart of my testimony:

Misusing the National Guard to police our streets is dangerous to our democracy, ineffective at reducing crime, and potentially unlawful.

FIRST, IT’S DANGEROUS.

Using the Guard for policing blurs the line between military and civilian authority. Our troops swear to defend the nation against external threats, not to patrol our neighborhoods.

A recent Pentagon memo establishes something deeply troubling: a permanent, federally monitored civil-disturbance force -- 500 personnel per state, identical riot gear, and monthly federal reporting. This weakens the authority of governors and normalizes what should be exceptional.

Federally commanded armed soldiers on city streets chill free speech, intimidate residents, and discourage civic engagement. When we normalize such patrols at home, we weaken the trust that keeps our democracy strong.

SECOND, IT’S INEFFECTIVE.

Guard units are not trained for community-oriented police work.

Also, the data doesn’t support deployment since NYC is experiencing declining violent crime rates.

Effectively addressing crime requires well-funded civilian solutions. Deploying troops ignores root causes and risks making matters worse.

THIRD, IT’S POTENTIALLY UNLAWFUL.

The Posse Comitatus Act makes it a crime to use the military as a domestic police force. The President can federalize the Guard under the Insurrection Act, but only for narrow conditions.

Ordinary street crime doesn’t meet this threshold. A federal judge in Los Angeles found Guard deployment “improper” because there was no rebellion and civilian law enforcement was capable. In addition, cross-state deployments without a governor’s consent violate state sovereignty.

CONCLUSION

Council Members, domestic use of the military must not outpace the law.

New York City deserves real public safety solutions—not a military occupation.

I urge you to support law-bounded, governor-led actions.

Prioritize de-escalation over coercion.

Demand transparency and oversight.

The National Guard should defend the nation, not patrol its neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Testimony by Brigadier General Loree Sutton, US Army (Ret), MD

Former Commissioner for the NYC Department of Veterans’ Services

Chair Restler and distinguished Committee Members, Community Leaders, Advocates, and Friends:

Thank you all for being here – and for your leadership and commitment to making New York City a place with space and grace for all to claim lives of purpose, passion, dignity and respect.

I speak today wearing several hats, having served as the founding Commissioner for the NYC Department of Veterans’ Services; as a combat veteran with nearly 30 years of military service; as a psychiatrist and advocate for accelerating access to breakthrough treatments for PTSD; and as a member of the National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A), a bi-partisan, all-volunteer organization of senior national security leaders, established in 2021 to counter growing threats to our democratic institutions, constitutional norms, and the rule of law.

The recent election should remind Americans of what New York has always embodied: resilience through diversity. Mayor-elect Mamdani cannot govern alone; he’ll require stable, cooperative intergovernmental relationships to govern effectively as well as alliances that span neighborhoods, faiths, and political tribes. He’ll need a civic resilience strategy to prove that democracy still works when citizens choose cooperation over chaos; that New Yorkers can mobilize to protect the city from federal overreach.

Ensuring that federal authorities adhere to longstanding norms is a bipartisan imperative, regardless of who occupies the White House. The principles at stake are constitutional, not partisan. Federal overreach is far from theoretical – we have already seen the opening moves in cities across the nation, including improper use of the National Guard for routine policing. This dangerous overreach undercuts military readiness, flouts the rule of law and does nothing to address the root causes of crime.

These are not the actions of a federal government engaged in normal policy disagreements. These are signals designed to destabilize trust, sow fear, and divide communities. New York cannot afford passivity. Nor can it rely on hope. It must respond with structure, discipline, and unity of purpose.

This is why I urge the creation of what could be called Operation Gotham Strong—a comprehensive, multi-sector strategy designed to defend the city’s local autonomy, strengthen public confidence, and protect vulnerable communities.

Key elements include:

1. Create a Civic Resilience Coalition.

Designed to coordinate safety, communications, and service continuity, the mayor-led coalition’s first action could feature a public signing ceremony for a rule of law compact pledging obedience to orders, zero tolerance for vigilantism, and full protection for press and elections staff. Earning the trust of all New Yorkers is of utmost importance—no matter whom they voted for mayor.

2. Adopt a “Truth in 30” communication standard.

Rumor spreads fear. Fear fuels authoritarianism. New York should commit to releasing verified information within 30 minutes of any viral rumor, federal action, or safety threat. False claims about raids, curfews, or unrest would meet immediate, multilingual facts through Notify NYC, 3-1-1, municipal social media, and community radio.

3. Rebuild trust, confidence, and cohesion.

After years of political whiplash and venal corruption, New Yorkers need proof that government can function under extreme duress without capitulating or collapsing. If New York governs with calm, clarity, and resolve, it can model civic resilience and sustainable democracy for the entire country.

Conclusion

In closing, New York is entering a struggle that is larger than one city and larger than one mayor. It is nothing less than a test of whether American democracy can withstand a federal government willing to intimidate and harm its own citizens. Recent federal actions risk undermining the normal, cooperative relationships between federal and municipal authorities. Such actions, if expanded, could interfere with normal governance processes and undermine confidence in election administration.

But New York has a chance to prove the opposite: that civic resilience is still possible, that governance can outlast grievance. Rising above the din of politics as usual, New Yorkers must meet the demands of this moment—together, with unwavering strength and shared purpose.

Thank you for your leadership in addressing the critical challenge of building civic resilience and protecting NYC from federal overreach. I look forward to your comments and questions.

In this episode of The Briefing, experts break down one of the most urgent national security and constitutional issues facing the United States today: President Trump’s deployment of active-duty troops and federalized National Guard units into American cities — including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Portland, and Memphis — over the objections of governors and local leaders.

What does it mean for civil liberties, our constitutional system, and the long-standing principle that the U.S. military should not police American citizens?

Featured Speakers:

• Elizabeth Goitein, Senior Director, Brennan Center Liberty & National Security Program

• Maj. Gen. William L. Enyart, USA (Ret.), former Adjutant General of the Illinois National Guard; former Member of Congress

• Moderator: Michael Waldman, President & CEO, Brennan Center for Justice

Together, they examine how the Posse Comitatus Act functions as a safeguard against military involvement in civilian law enforcement, why federalizing state National Guard units without the consent of governors represents a profound break from constitutional norms, and how the presence of troops in American cities can suppress civil liberties, chill public protest, and shift the balance of power away from civilian authority.

They also explore the historical fears of standing armies that shaped the Constitution, the legal and practical implications of presidential overreach, and what these deployments mean for the health of American democracy today.

Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin and Senators. My name is William Enyart. I am a retired major general. The last five years of my service I was the Adjutant General, or commanding general for the 13,000 soldiers and airmen of the Illinois National Guard. I had Guardsmen in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We had the largest combat deployment since World War II.

I served nearly thirty-six years in the military. I come from a proud family of veterans. My father, brother and I served a total of nearly sixty-four years. We each served as enlisted members. I was commissioned an officer in 1982. After military retirement, I was elected to Congress where I served on the House Armed Services Committee.

I recite these facts so that you understand I have experience at the enlisted, officer, general officer and policymaker level. This experience forms the basis of what I will tell you today.

I’m here to talk with you about appropriate uses of the National Guard. The National Guard has a proud history of service to our nation from the Revolutionary War to the World Wars to today’s conflicts.

The National Guard is the best trained military reserve force in the world. There were times during the Iraq war that the Army National Guard provided more than half of our combat power in Iraq.

We train in military skills, not police skills, to provide part-time soldiers for our nation’s defense.

Our other, equally important, role is as a trained and ready force for the governors. In our state role, we deploy to assist in disaster recovery. We deployed to New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina, to Illinois for Mississippi River floods, to St. Louis for tornadoes, the Nevada Air National Guard for forest fires to name but a few.

You have heard what we are. Here’s what we are not: we are not trained as police officers. Our soldiers may receive a couple of hours a year in civil disturbance training. We do not receive the months and years of training required to become qualified police officers.

We are not trained to perform arrests, to perform traffic stops, to perform investigations, to follow up on crime tips.

The calls to mobilize the Guard fail to understand this, nor do they understand the costs to mobilize the Guard.

There is the cost to the taxpayer. The number I’ve heard for Los Angeles is $120 million for 4,000 Guardsmen for sixty days. That’s a high price tag for a stop gap measure. How many police officers could have been hired, trained and put on the streets for $120 million?

There is the cost to the Department of Defense and to FEMA. Every dollar spent on a misguided use is a dollar that can’t be spent on training or equipping these soldiers. That can’t be spent on their real mission. A dollar that isn’t there for disaster response when the next hurricane hits New Orleans or the next tornado levels St. Louis.

And there’s the hidden cost to the soldiers and their families. These are part-time soldiers. They have jobs at home. They have educations they are missing. They have families who rely on them. Employers who rely on them.

Let me speak to you from a Guardsman’s heart. Sunday, my pastor at the Presbyterian Church in Belleville, Illinois, spoke about trust. He was speaking of the trust between God and man. Let me speak to you of a soldier’s trust.

A soldier trusts his fellow soldiers. He trusts his leadership. He trusts the political leadership of this country to send him on missions, whether wartime or peacetime that make sense. Missions that don’t waste his time or his life. That don’t waste his sacrifices.

A soldier’s family trusts that their sacrifices, their loss of that soldier for a day, a week, a month, maybe forever, isn’t a waste.

Employers trust that that Guardsman’s mission is necessary. That it’s important. That it protects our nation.

Communities trust. Trust that our soldiers serve our nation. Defend our nation. Defend justice and democracy. Trust that a soldier’s mission is to protect them, not police them.

To misuse our troops whether Guard or active duty is to breach those bonds of trust.

When these soldiers are doing what they signed up for - defending our great nation or helping their neighbors recover from a natural disaste- they don’t mind sacrificing wages, missing a child’s birthday, losing months away from school. But when they’re bagging trash in Washington DC, they lose trust. Worse their employers and families lose trust.

It took a generation for the Guard to recover from the stain of Guardsmen shooting and killing college students at Kent State. We are one trigger pull away from another such tragedy. Don’t let it happen.

National Guard forces are for a real emergency, not a band aid for long-standing problems that need a long-term solution.

Hurricane Katrina Response, August-September 2005

Hurricane Katrina came ashore on Monday, 29 August 2005, causing extraordinary devastation along the Gulf Coast. Damage was particularly significant in New Orleans and the surrounding Parishes and on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The conditions following landfall of the storm have been well documented. The Nation watched through media reports countless cases where trapped individuals were lost and there was a general sense that the response to the storm at the federal, state, and local level was failing. Thousands of people who evacuated first to the Superdome, then to the Convention Center, were trapped or stranded with minimal food or water. A major problem was the lack of central coordination and command and control of the resources responding to the event. This statement focuses on response operations in and around the City of New Orleans. New Orleans had, in effect, lost continuity of operations and had limited capability to direct deployed resources where needed.

Later in the week a U.S. Northern Command Joint Task Force under the command of Lieutenant General (LTG) Russell Honore deployed from Mississippi. The Louisiana National Guard was also deployed by Governor Blanco under Title 32 of the US Code. The Louisiana National Guard was augmented by National Guard forces from other states under mutual aid agreements as a portion of the Louisiana National Guard was deployed to Iraq at the time. During that period LTG Honore worked collaboratively with the Louisiana Adjutant General (TAG), Major General (MG) Bennett Landreneau, to conduct disaster response operations.

On Monday morning, 5 September, one week after the storm made landfall, I was called by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and was directed to deploy to New Orleans to assist the Principal Federal Official (PFO), FEMA Administrator Michael Brown, who was headquartered in Baton Rouge to provide federal coordination for the response in New Orleans. I flew to Baton Rouge via Coast Guard aircraft that evening and the next morning flew by Coast Guard helicopter into the city, landing at a makeshift landing zone near the Convention Center, located adjacent to piers on the Mississippi River. Flying over the city I was astounded at the level of flooding and damage. Most of the city was without power and water and much of it was still underwater. With concurrence of Administrator Brown, I directed FEMA command and control vans be placed on the pier in New Orleans adjacent to the Convention Center next to the USS Iwo Jima that had been deployed to support recovery operations. That “foothold” became the center for planning and coordination with Joint Task Force Katrina, the Louisiana National Guard, FEMA and the Coast Guard. In the next 96 hours the response was stabilized. The City of New Orleans was divided into sectors and then assigned to the deployed JTF components and National Guard in order to support state and local responders who had legal authority to search buildings. Subsequently three sweeps were made through the city to rescue persons remaining and to begin the grim task of recovering remains. On Friday, 9 September, I was called to Baton Rouge by Secretary Chertoff and advised that I would relieve Mike Brown of all PFO duties, including oversight of all federal response and recovery operations in the affected area of the Gulf Coast. Later, I functioned in a similar role after Hurricane Rita made landfall in Southwest Louisiana on 24 September 2005. I carried out PFO responsibilities until my relief in February 2006 by a FEMA Senior Executive.

The key to stabilizing the response in New Orleans was the development of unity of effort between federal, state and local responders, including the support of non-governmental and non-profit organizations. This unity was created by a commonly held understanding of the goal of operations, one focused on the victims and survivors. As I stated several times to the media at the time, our goal was to accelerate the speed of the response and cut red tape. My first guidance issued after my elevation to PFO on 9 September was to treat anyone impacted by the storm as if they were a member of your own family. This construct succeeded because the statutory authority of each party was respected, specifically the state and local leaders in Louisiana and the Louisiana National Guard. I can personally attest to the effectiveness and value of integrated, cooperative operations between the federal, state, and local military, law enforcement, and emergency responders.

As an example, following an agreement that all parties would cooperate in the response, a joint planning cell was located on a pier in New Orleans adjacent to the USS Iwo Jima which was moored in New Orleans to provide federal support. The city was divided into sectors for the purpose of doing house to house sweeps to locate survivors and recover remains of those who perished. These sweeps were done by state and local law enforcement officials who were provided transportation, logistical support, communications, and medical assistance by federal resources from JTF Katrina or the Louisiana National Guard. I termed these operations “coincidental operations” as each component was assigned a sector through integrated, joint planning. As a result, the 82nd Airborne JTF component could be assigned to the central business district to support local law enforcement, while the Louisiana National Guard could conduct similar operations in another agreed-to sector. This construct allowed an immediate “hasty sweep” of the city, followed by secondary and tertiary sweeps to rescue or evacuate any remaining victims and recover remains.

While there was extensive political discourse and associated media coverage regarding responsibility and accountability for what was perceived as a failed initial response, the response was stabilized and was effective once a collaborative structure was implemented based on trust and a shared vision of the desired outcome based on the needs of those impacted. That collaborative approach was validated after the landfall of Hurricane Rita on 25 September near the Texas-Louisiana border. The ability to deploy elements of JTF Katrina to Lake Charles, Louisiana under the operating concepts validated in New Orleans significantly improved the response to Hurricane Rita.

Throughout these response operations I was guided by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Finally, I maintained continual, extensive contact with Secretary Chertoff and President Bush and their staffs. Similarly, I had extensive discussions with Governor Kathleen Blanco, Mayor Ray Nagin, and the surrounding Parish leaders throughout the operation.

Two key enablers allowed me to reorganize and manage the response. First, I was allowed to speak directly to the media and public by the President. Second, while I had no specific legal authority to order or direct operations, I was empowered to represent the President and the administration... I had a “bully pulpit.”

Some five years later I was again asked by President Obama to lead the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In that instance, the event occurred outside state jurisdiction and it was clearly a federally directed response under law. Nonetheless, the concept of unity of effort and a shared, cohesive vision was needed to mount an effective response.

Federal Deployment of the National Guard Under Title 10

The profound lessons of my lifelong service, including leading the responses to Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, have clearly demonstrated the need to create unity of effort in any complex response regardless of the threat. Unity of effort is a concept that goes beyond the traditional concept of military hierarchical unity of command. The latter is rarely solely the single answer to a complex problem, whether it be a natural disaster, manmade disaster, civil disturbance, or any challenge short of warfare or insurrection. Unity of effort requires coordination among federal and state authorities and agreement on the priorities and divisions of responsibilities. When state and local authorities believe they have the capacity to respond to a given situation without federal assistance, including to respond to demonstrations and restore civil order, achieving the unity of effort required to effectively deploy federalized National Guard units is not possible. Their use under such circumstances is likely to be ineffective and inadvisable.

A profound threat to our system and the future success of our military and our democracy as a whole is the breakdown of the established, constitutional boundaries between military and civilian authority.

The recent Title 10 deployments risk the erosion of the essential boundaries between military and civilian authorities. Specifically, this erosion threatens the integrity of the Posse Comitatus Act as a bedrock of American federalism and civil-military relations. This prohibition is no formality; it reflects the American tradition of strictly keeping the military out of domestic law enforcement. In addition to this erosion of the PCA, deploying federal forces over the objections of elected governors and mayors undermines the delicate balance of power in our federal system and risks further politicizing the military by drawing into politically controversial domestic matters best dealt with by civil authorities. The public’s trust in its armed services is a sacred and fragile bond, and once lost, it is difficult to regain.

The failure to adhere to these foundational guardrails and principles is now a matter of judicial record. The deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was found to violate the PCA in federal court. Such legal transgressions jeopardize the essential apolitical nature of the force, violating the fundamental principle that the military must be “insulated from both the reality and the appearance of acting as a handmaiden for partisan political causes or candidates” (Greer v. Spock.) A brief that I and other amici curiae filed in that case highlighted how military forces, who are not trained for civilian policing, engaged in activities such as: “arrest; seizure of evidence; search of a person; search of a building; investigation of crime; interviewing witnesses; pursuit of an escaped civilian prisoner; search of an area for a suspect and other like activities.”

The risks created by these deployments translate directly into tangible harms that undermine the cohesion and capability of the force, posing serious risks to both servicemembers and civilians.

First, military personnel are neither intended nor specifically trained for the complexities of domestic law enforcement, lacking the essential instruction in respecting civilian Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. This is a grave vulnerability, compounded by the high-risk authorization for deployed Guard members to carry weapons of war while on civilian streets, which is fundamentally unsuited to peacetime duties. The potential for tragedy is not speculative; a communication failure during the 1992 Los Angeles riots reportedly led to Marines firing over 200 rounds into a civilian’s house, a clear example of the potentially deadly consequences of such deployments.

Second, the political nature of these missions creates immediate strategic degradation. Reports from the ground indicate troops are experiencing fatigue, confusion, and demoralization due to an unclear mission. We have seen this manifest in arguably trivial assignments, with troops reportedly relegated to gardening duties and being nicknamed the “National Guardeners,” activities that debase their service and harm morale. This, in turn, risks exacerbating recruitment and retention challenges. A Guard recruiter reportedly stated that this mission “has deterred potential recruits and pushed already disillusioned soldiers to their breaking points.”

Third, these domestic assignments threaten their core national security and disaster relief missions by improperly diverting vital personnel from their customary training, readiness and state emergency response responsibilities. For instance, a failure to adhere to legal guidelines resulted in the diversion of specialized Guard crews in California during peak wildfire season, directly degrading state-level emergency preparedness. In addition, the diversion of Guard units from states across the country during hurricane season risks degrading their home states’ emergency preparedness. The continuous erosion of readiness and morale is an unacceptable cost to our nation’s security.

The integrity of our democratic institutions and the apolitical stature of our military are not negotiable; they are the true strength of our national security. However, this strength is jeopardized if we abandon the constitutional principles that govern civil-military relations for short-term expediency. I urge this Committee to exercise its full oversight authority to ensure strict adherence to the PCA and the foundational laws governing the use of our armed forces. The armed forces must never be used for purposes that compromise the principles they are tasked to defend.

Retired Adm. Thad W. Allen served as the 23rd Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard from May 2006 to May 2010.

Countryman reminds them that their service matters and that even when leadership fails to show appreciation, they are respected and admired by the American people.

This speech was delivered outside the State Department in July 2025.

I’m the founder and President of National Security Leaders for America-- or NSL4A—a one-of-a-kind, bipartisan, pro-democracy organization of over 1300 retired admirals, generals, and senior enlisted; former ambassadors, elected officials, cabinet secretaries, and senior executives. Collectively, our members represent centuries of service to this nation—service forged through experience, sacrifice, and hard-earned lessons.

Perhaps the most important of those lessons is this: when a nation breaks its promises to its veterans, it does more than betray its values—it weakens its security and puts the future readiness of our armed forces at risk. Our ability to recruit and retain the very best of each generations’ leaders is undermined. Honoring those who served isn’t just the right thing to do—it’s essential to the strength and resilience of our democracy.

This is not an academic discussion for me.

I stand before you today not just as a retired Rear Admiral, but more importantly, as the son of a Vietnam veteran, the nephew, son-in-law, brother-in-law, and brother of Navy and Marine Corps veterans. I am someone, not unlike many here today, whose life has been shaped by the service and sacrifice of generations.

My father also served in the Navy and remained on active duty into the early 1980s. I remember calling him during my time at the Naval Academy to ask about fleet readiness for a paper I was writing. His response was sobering. Ships were undermanned, underfunded, and struggling. Not because the sailors weren’t committed or due to poor leadership. It was because our country had turned its back on those who served.

The public mood after Vietnam had shifted, and with it, support for our military faded. The scars from that betrayal didn’t just affect those who came home—they bled into combat readiness, morale, and recruitment. This not only directly impacted the military, but it also threatened our National Security at the height of the Cold War and when the risk from terrorism began to expand globally.

That conversation stayed with me. It was my first personal glimpse into a national pattern—one we’ve seen too many times before.

After Korea, our veterans were met with silence. After Vietnam, with scorn. These men and women didn’t ask for parades—they needed care, opportunity, and dignity. Instead, they were forgotten, and the institutions that were supposed to support them were gutted or neglected. The consequences weren’t just moral failings—they had strategic costs. Recruitment fell. Readiness suffered. Trust eroded.

It took hard work and national leadership to turn that tide. During my time in service, I witnessed our country begin to learn from past mistakes. We reinvested in our forces, we renewed our commitments, and we sent a message to future generations: if you step forward to serve, your nation will always stand behind you.

That belief mattered—especially after the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

The country saw a new generation raise their hands and volunteer to serve in what would become the longest war in American history. This all-volunteer force carried the weight of 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many served not just once, but two, three, even four tours. I remember standing in Iraq as the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, addressed a group of Army soldiers. He asked them how many were on their second deployment. Countless hands rose. Then he asked about third tours. Hands stayed up. I’ll never forget the look in their eyes—stoic, resolved. And I’ll never forget thinking about the families behind those hands, holding things together back home through deployment after deployment.

Those young Americans trusted in something essential: that their country had their and their families’ backs. They would not become the next forgotten generation. They served with a solid foundation of faith in the promises made to each of them — that their nation would care for their health, honor their continued service, and respect their sacrifice. They endured tour after tour through 20 years of war believing in the country’s promises.

And now, I stand here ashamed. I stand here in disbelief. I stand here shaking with rage that it appears our nation’s promises are about to be abandoned.

We’re hearing of proposals to dismantle the VA, to fire thousands of veterans in civil service, to politicize the government positions they’ve earned. We’re seeing the slow erosion of appreciation, replaced by indifference—or worse, contempt. The fading echoes of “thank you for your service” are being drowned out by the new message that veterans are quote “not fit to have a job” unquote.

If together we can’t stop this now, we risk repeating the very mistakes we swore never to make again. We risk undermining the hard work Republican and Democratic administrations put forward to rebuild our armed forces, to renew our commitments, and to build the greatest military in the world.

At the end of World War I, General John Pershing said of the fallen, “Time must not dim the glory of their deeds.” That quote adorns our memorials. It’s etched into our national conscience. And it must apply to both those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and to those who went into harm’s way. Because this isn’t about nostalgia—it’s about national security.

• When we forget our veterans, we damage our readiness.

• When we push them out of government, we lose skilled, principled leaders.

• When we undercut the VA, we threaten the health and well-being of millions who served.

This is not only unjust. It is unwise.

Because the strength of our future force depends on the credibility of our past commitments.

A nation that keeps its promises will always have patriots willing to serve. A nation that forgets… may one day find no one answering the call.

• Let us not forget.

• Let us not repeat history’s failures.

• Let us ensure that time never dims the glory— nor the obligations—their deeds demand.

Thank you

Rear Admiral Mike Smith is the Founder and President of National Security Leaders for America