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!

This week’s Public Discourse Watch focuses on the debate surrounding a new Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence and the growing tension between federal authority and state-level regulation in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

What Happened

The President signed an Executive Order aimed at establishing a federal framework for Artificial Intelligence regulation. A central point of controversy was the order’s apparent effort to discourage or override state-level AI regulations, immediately raising concerns about federal preemption and executive overreach in a domain marked by fast technological change and high uncertainty.

Framing and Impact

The Left-Leaning Narrative

Framing: Safety and Responsible Governance

This narrative stresses the urgency of strong safety regulations to mitigate AI-related risks such as job displacement, algorithmic bias, surveillance, and misinformation. The executive order is often criticized as too accommodating to corporate interests and insufficient in protecting the public, while state-level initiatives are framed as necessary and proactive safeguards.

Benefits: This framing benefits consumer protection advocates, labor organizations, and civil liberties groups by positioning them as defenders of responsible technological governance against corporate lobbying.

Spotting: Look for language such as “safety guardrails,” “societal risks,” “insufficient protection,” and calls for state action in the absence of comprehensive federal legislation.

The Right-Leaning Narrative

Framing: Innovation and Economic Competitiveness

This narrative emphasizes the need to limit regulatory burdens in order to maintain U.S. leadership in global AI development. The executive order is framed positively as a step toward regulatory clarity and national consistency, while state regulations are portrayed as a fragmented “patchwork” that stifles innovation, increases costs, and weakens competitiveness against rivals such as China.

Benefits: This framing benefits technology companies, investors, and deregulation advocates who prioritize economic growth and innovation over precautionary regulation.

Spotting: Look for language such as “stifling innovation,” “global competition,” “regulatory burden,” and references to a “patchwork” of state laws.

Critical Thinker’s Corner

This issue matters to innovators, workers, consumers, and policymakers alike, as the governance of AI will shape the future economy, labor markets, and information environment.

Impact: The product of this polarized debate is regulatory uncertainty. Federal gridlock may delay comprehensive legislation, prompting states to act independently, which in turn reinforces arguments against fragmented regulation.

Key Question: Which level of government is better equipped to regulate AI — the federal government, with its ability to create uniform standards, or states, with their capacity for faster, more experimental approaches? A critical thinker must weigh the trade-off between consistency and adaptability.

---

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!

This week’s Public Discourse Watch examines the ongoing national debate over election integrity and redistricting, highlighting how different political narratives frame the same democratic processes in fundamentally opposing ways.

What Happened

Reports emerged concerning a state-level Republican legislative effort to redraw congressional maps in a way that would significantly favor the party, which was subsequently blocked by a bipartisan vote in the state Senate. This event unfolded against the backdrop of an ongoing national debate and a series of lawsuits challenging state election and redistricting procedures across the United States.

Framing and Impact

The Left-Leaning Narrative

Framing: Protecting Fair Democracy and Voter Access

This narrative emphasizes voter suppression and the erosion of democratic norms through partisan gerrymandering. The bipartisan block of the redistricting effort is framed as a victory for democracy, while attempts to redraw electoral maps are portrayed as deliberate efforts to entrench political power rather than earn voter support through policy.

Benefits: This framing benefits the Democratic Party and voting rights organizations by mobilizing supporters around the defense of what they define as a fair and representative electoral system.

Spotting: Look for language such as “partisan gerrymander,” “voter suppression,” “rigging the maps,” and “threat to the integrity of the vote.”

The Right-Leaning Narrative

Framing: Legal Strategy and State Sovereignty

This narrative reframes redistricting as a legitimate and routine political strategy used by both parties to maximize representation. It emphasizes state sovereignty over elections and argues that federal courts or institutions should not interfere with state legislative authority. Broader election rules are framed as necessary safeguards to ensure voter confidence and prevent fraud.

Benefits: This framing benefits the Republican Party and advocates of strong state-level control, allowing them to justify favorable legislative outcomes as lawful exercises of political power.

Spotting: Look for language such as “legal authority,” “state-level control,” “voter security,” and claims that courts should not “legislate from the bench.”

Critical Thinker’s Corner

This issue matters to every citizen because the rules governing elections determine who gets represented and how votes are translated into political power.

Impact: The product of this intense polarization is a decline in public confidence in electoral legitimacy. When citizens believe elections are “rigged,” whether through gerrymandering or fraud, trust in democratic institutions erodes.

Key Question: Where is the non-partisan line between a political party using its lawful legislative authority to draw maps or set voting rules, and engaging in anti-democratic manipulation of outcomes? A critical thinker must separate the factual effects of a law from the partisan intent and framing used to describe it.

---

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!