There are growing signs that some of the National Guard troops whom President Donald Trump deployed to Los Angeles are demoralized and discontent with their ostensible mission of quashing the “rebellion” of protests against federal immigration raids. For those of you watching the “how close are we to an authoritarian state?” dial, it’s a small but meaningful indication that Trump might not be able to get all the armed forces on board in future authoritarian power grabs.
The latest reporting comes via The New York Times, which interviewed nearly two dozen people, including National Guard troops and officers, as well as officials and civilians who worked closely with them. The interviews “show that many members of the Guard are questioning the mission,” the Times reports. Six members of the Guard, ranging from infantrymen to officers to officials in leadership positions, described “low morale and deep concern that the deployment may hurt recruitment for the state-based military force for years to come.”
The way that security forces respond to authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian directives is a window into the power of the leader issuing them.
The Times says several of the guard members had “raised objections themselves or knew someone who objected, either because they did not want to be involved in immigration crackdowns or felt the Trump administration had put them on the streets for what they described as a ‘fake mission.’” According to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, the rate at which soldiers are set to extend their service during the deployment is dramatically lower than the typical extension rate. And then there was this colorful portrait of chaos:
At least 105 members of the deployment sought counseling from behavioral health officers, and at least one company commander and one battalion commander who objected to the mission were reassigned to work unrelated to the mobilization, the Guard officers said. Some troops became so disgruntled that there were several reports of soldiers defecating in Humvees and showers at the Southern California base where the troops are stationed, prompting tightened bathroom security.
We don’t know the exact reasons for the counseling, the reassignments, or the vandalistic defecation. But it does seem as if things aren’t looking great, and given the context and other background information, it’s plausible that some of it could be tied to political disillusionment.
The Times story fits in with other recent media accounts. As National Guard troops were being deployed in June, The Guardian reported that three different advocacy organizations representing military families “said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations” and noted that “the groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions.”
“The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn’t the kind of national security we signed up for,” Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans, told The Guardian.
Separately, there are also signs of morale problems among the ranks of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The Atlantic’s recent investigation into the issue found that some agents were concerned with what they saw as the mission reorientation of ICE toward indiscriminate and brutal mass detention. None of this reporting suggests that we’re on the brink of seeing mass resignations or protests among National Guard troops or ICE officers. But it still matters. The way that security and law enforcement forces respond to authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian directives is a window into the power of the leader issuing them. These forces are crucial to the actual implementation of an authoritarian agenda, and their compliance or noncompliance with authoritarian directives can make or break an aspiring autocrat’s claims to power. Police officers have historically protested by engaging in work slowdowns and making fewer arrests. The refusal of some security forces to repress revolutions, coup attempts and other uprisings is often instrumental to whether they succeed. In other words, if enough members of the repressive apparatus of the state believe that it would be wrong to carry out their orders, authoritarian power can crumble quickly. During Trump’s first term, polling and reporting showing that the military’s officer corps disapproved of Trump was a sign that he would likely face resistance if he tried to enlist the military in a coup attempt (say, while denying the 2020 election results). Now, there appear to be signs of disenchantment among some of the rank and file on the front lines of Trump’s repressive efforts. If Trump tries to marshal the armed forces and law enforcement to claim total power for himself, those cracks and fissures could become potential rays of hope.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy. 
