This week’s Public Discourse Watch explores concerns surrounding the politicization of the U.S. military and how competing narratives frame executive authority, institutional norms, and democratic stability.

What Happened

In early December 2025, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly warned that the U.S. military’s apolitical tradition was under strain amid increasing ideological polarization. He cited alleged purges of senior commanders and expanded domestic deployments of the National Guard. At the same time, a group of congressional Democrats who are military veterans released a video urging service members to resist “illegal orders,” prompting reports of FBI investigations into the lawmakers’ actions.

Framing and Impact

The Left-Leaning Narrative

Framing: Protecting Democracy and Institutional Norms

This narrative centers on concerns that the executive branch is attempting to politicize the military by using it for domestic political purposes or sidelining commanders based on perceived loyalty. Such actions are framed as erosions of long-standing norms that safeguard the military’s neutrality and protect democratic governance.

Benefits: This framing benefits those seeking to mobilize opposition to executive overreach and reinforce the principle of an apolitical military serving the Constitution rather than a political agenda.

Spotting: Look for language such as “erosion of norms,” “political purges,” “unlawful orders,” and references to a “threat to democracy.”

The Right-Leaning Narrative

Framing: National Security and Commander-in-Chief Authority

This narrative emphasizes the President’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to select leadership, enforce loyalty, and deploy forces to maintain national security. The congressional video is framed as an act of insubordination that undermines civilian control of the military and weakens executive authority.

Benefits: This framing benefits those who prioritize a strong executive branch and seek to delegitimize political critics of the administration’s national security policies.

Spotting: Look for language such as “insubordination,” “defying the Commander-in-Chief,” “national security imperative,” and questioning the loyalty or authority of military critics.

Critical Thinker’s Corner

This issue matters because a politically neutral military is a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that the armed forces serve the nation and its Constitution rather than any political faction.

Impact: Heightened polarization risks eroding public trust in the military’s neutrality. If citizens come to view the armed forces as aligned with partisan interests, the institution’s legitimacy and unifying role may weaken.

Key Question: When does an administration’s lawful policy direction cross the line into politicization that the military has a professional duty to resist? Distinguishing between lawful but controversial orders and unlawful directives is essential for critical analysis.

---

Public Discourse Watch is a weekly project of The Common Ground Project, designed to strengthen public discourse literacy and critical thinking among young people. We hope that you enjoyed this read! Join us for next week’s summary on Sunday!