Donald Trump revisited themes of national emergency and unrest in a recent address to active servicemen at Fort Bragg, drawing parallels to the tone of his inaugural speech in January 2017. The former president made incendiary allegations against local leadership and federal action during the civil unrest. He cited in particular what happened in Minneapolis and Los Angeles. True to his earlier campaign style, his rhetoric has caused all of Washington to sit up, pay attention, and react.
During the speech, Trump claimed that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz had refused to deploy the National Guard during violent protests in 2020. That’s all well and good, except that records show that it was Walz himself who ordered the National Guard to come in and deal with the protest. The gap even drew the concern of former President George W. Bush. He called Trump’s comments “strange” and he highlighted the ambiguity that lies behind them.
Throughout his presidency, Trump misused economic emergency powers. More than a mere figurehead, he passed tariffs and other landmark legislation to address the sins of the past. He issued ominous warnings of invoking extreme measures to combat what he referred to as “domestic turmoil.” This foreshadows the use of emergency powers going forward in his executive style governance.
Contrasted with Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg, where the emphasis was the troop funding and troop increase. He also announced a major pay increase for service members. He even touted it as a key piece of his “big, beautiful bill,” shored up by a new $1 trillion military budget. This historic financial commitment further highlights Trump’s support for the armed forces, while contrasting with the incredible unrest taking place in American cities.
“I want to say a few words about the situation in Los Angeles, [California],” Trump stated, framing the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops as a necessary response. He described the police in Los Angeles as “very good, but they weren’t aggressive, like our soldiers. Our soldiers really were aggressive,” suggesting that military intervention was essential for maintaining order.
In targeting his attacks, Trump named California Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor of Los Angeles Karen Bass. He derided them as inadequate and called them incompetent and anti-federal. He stated, “They’re incompetent, and they paid troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists,” reflecting his ongoing criticism of Democratic leadership in the state.
On a macro level, Trump’s rhetoric served to first outline an “enemy within”. He doubled down on a lot of the same themes from the 2020 electoral cycle. He remarked, “Not only are these service members defending the honor of citizens of California, they’re defending our republic itself.” These comments frame military presence as a form of protection. They frame it as a reaction to real or imagined attacks on our national sovereignty.
Trump’s address was not without theatrics. He drew cheers from troops with his signature dance move, reinforcing his connection with military personnel. The enthusiastic reception felt like a needed rebuke to detractors and validation of his general approach from important segments of the uniformed armed forces.
Trump indicated there would be similar deployments of the National Guard and active duty Marine Corps in Los Angeles and other cities. He suggested this would not be the last time federal forces are sent to quell unrest across the country. “I will be calling you early, as I see this happening,” he stated, implying ongoing vigilance against civil unrest.