Can the Military Use Force Against Protesters?

Sunday, November 23, 2025

In a few words:

Debate over the use of active-duty military against domestic protesters and legal limits on presidential orders.

More details:

This segment from a transcript features a tense exchange between a senator and a legal representative regarding the potential deployment of active-duty military, specifically the 82nd Airborne, into American cities to quell protests. The senator questions whether any city is in active insurrection and presses for a clear stance on whether the military should use force, such as shooting at the legs of unarmed protesters, if ordered by the Commander-in-Chief.

The legal representative cites historical precedents, mentioning the 1970s and the Pentagon's involvement, suggesting the president has authority to use federal troops to protect federal functions and property. However, when directly asked if they would push back against an order to shoot unarmed protesters, the response focuses on ensuring the president's directives comply with the Constitution and law, rather than a direct 'yes' or 'no' to defying the order. The exchange highlights the complex legal and ethical considerations surrounding the use of military force domestically and the concept of speaking 'truth to power'.

Video Transcript

0:00

So right now by your legal determination

0:02

is any city in America in active

0:04

insurrection? Yes or no?

0:06

>> Senator, uh the president has not

0:08

declared that any insurrection is

0:11

>> Would you support the president in the

0:13

last administration asked then Secretary

0:15

Esper to send in the 82nd Airborne, the

0:18

same unit into uh the Washington DC to

0:22

try and quell peaceful protests here in

0:24

the city? And he said if necessary,

0:26

can't you just quote shoot at their

0:28

legs? Do you support the 82nd Airborne

0:31

active duty military troops being sent

0:33

into American cities today?

0:36

>> Senator, um it's my understanding the

0:39

Department of Justice has looked at this

0:41

issue going back to the 1970s when the

0:43

Pentagon was under duress uh as well as

0:47

Washington DC and it was the opinion

0:49

then that the president would have the

0:51

authority to use federal troops to

0:54

protect federal functions and property

0:56

in a manner

0:57

>> federal property. We get we get that's

0:59

I'm not dis disputing that. Would you

1:01

approve as a lawyer for the army? Would

1:03

you approve the 82nd Airborne an army

1:06

unit shooting at the legs of unarmed

1:09

protesters or would you push back

1:11

against the commander-in-chief against

1:12

that order?

1:14

>> Senator, I would say that the rules, the

1:16

current rules for the use of force that

1:18

uh US Northcom allows for uh service

1:21

members.

1:21

>> I mean, you said you were going to speak

1:23

truth to power. You literally just

1:24

answered Secret Sen Senator Kelly and

1:26

said you would speak truth to power. If

1:28

the president of the United States asked

1:30

you to quote shoot at the legs of

1:32

unarmed protesters, yes or no, would you

1:34

speak truth to power and say something

1:37

in push back to the president?

1:38

>> I would certainly make sure that the

1:40

president's directives would comply with

1:42

Constitution and law.

1:44

>> Okay. Uh I yield back.

Comments

Loading...
Loading comments...