Podcast Summary: The Dangers of Undermining U.S. Civil–Military Relations

Podcast: Imprimis (Hillsdale College)
Episode Date: January 21, 2026
Speaker: Makubin Thomas Owens
Theme: Exploring the vital importance of civilian control of the military in the U.S., new political threats to this principle, and the need for careful discourse when military and civilian authorities disagree.

Episode Overview

This episode features a speech from Makubin Thomas Owens, author of US Civil Military Relations After 9/11: Renegotiating the Civil Military Bargain. Drawing on historical precedent and current tension, Owens examines how the principle of civilian control over the military has been tested, especially in recent years. He specifically addresses how political actors’ calls for military resistance against civilian leadership risk destabilizing this foundational constitutional relationship.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Foundation of U.S. Civil–Military Relations

• Civilian Control Pre-dates the Constitution:
  • George Washington as commander-in-chief submitted to civilian authority of the Continental Congress.
  • The Constitution solidified that civilian policymakers set goals and resources; the military executes.
  • Military leaders can advise, but have no right to insist their advice is followed.
  • Healthy relations require mutual trust and respectful exchange.

2. The Trump Era: A Turning Point

• Unprecedented Tactics by Military Leaders:
  • During Donald Trump’s presidency, military advisers clashed with him over NATO, Afghanistan, Syria, and domestic unrest.
  • Owens observes, “the former frequently responded with subterfuge to undermine the president’s ability to implement his [policy]: slow rolling execution, leaking to the press […] or simply ignoring the policy.” (02:00)
  • “Bureaucracies have perfected these kinds of responses... but under Trump, the military employed these tactics to an unprecedented extent.” (02:40)

3. Praetorianism and the Coup Discourse

• The ‘Unthinkable’ Becomes Conversational:
  • Rosa Brooks (Georgetown Law) openly discussed possible military refusal to obey orders or even a coup (03:05).
  • Owens warns: “Praetorianism is incompatible with republican government,” referencing the Roman Empire and failed 1961 coup in France.

4. Lawmakers’ Video to the Military: A Dangerous Precedent

• Direct Appeals Disrupt the Chain of Command:

  • Six Democrat lawmakers (all veterans/intelligence backgrounds) posted a video urging active-duty military and national security workers to “refuse illegal orders.”
  • Quotes from the video:
    • “Our laws are clear—you can refuse illegal orders.” (06:21, Sen. Mark Kelly)
    • “When service members refuse to carry out illegal orders, we have your back.” (06:45, compilation)
  • Owens: “This video, at the very least, carelessly blurs the line between these things in a way to undermine trust between civilian policymakers and the military, and between seniors and subordinates within the military.” (07:10)

• Failure to Provide Context:

  • No examples of illegal orders given; ambiguity may cause confusion in the ranks.
  • “The civil–military implications are serious... Military leaders, not legislators, are responsible for issuing guidance to troops…” (09:35)

5. Historical Parallels: Copperheads & Civil War Loyalty

• Lincoln and the Copperheads:
  • Owens draws a parallel with Civil War-era Democrats (“Copperheads”) who undermined the war effort, leading to the arrest of Rep. Clement Vallandigham.
  • Lincoln’s 1863 letter:
    • “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier who deserts…while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?” (11:35, Abraham Lincoln quoted by Owens)
  • The comparison: both the Copperheads and today’s lawmakers appeal directly to troops in ways that can foster insubordination.

6. Legality of Trump Administration's Military Orders

• Question of ‘Illegal Orders’:
  • Specific accusations against Trump (e.g., ordering “illegal” strikes on drug traffickers) proved unsubstantiated; follow-up reporting by NYT and testimony by Admiral Frank Bradley countered the narrative.
• Historical Use of Military in Domestic Affairs:
  • Frequent precedent for employing military domestically, e.g. Civil Rights era, the LA riots, and even the enforcement of anti-slavery/federal law in 19th century.
  • Owens: “US troops have been so employed since the beginning of our Republic.” (13:15)
  • Cites Insurrection Act (1807), Militia Acts (1792), and examples from Reconstruction and desegregation enforcement.

7. The Posse Comitatus Act Misconceptions

• Myth that PCA Bars Domestic Military Use:
  • PCA only bars putting federal troops under state/local control without presidential authority.
  • “It does not constitute a bar to the use of the military in domestic affairs, and it certainly does not limit the president’s authority as commander-in-chief...” (15:30)
  • “The president’s power to use both regulars and militia remained undisturbed by the Posse Comitatus Act.” (15:44, quoting John Brinckerhoff)

8. International and Statutory Law Concerning Drug War

• Precedent for Military Action Against Narco-Traffickers:

  • From Reagan to Clinton, Biden, and Obama, military action against narcotics, including strikes and interdiction, had continued bipartisan precedent.
  • US and international law (including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) allows such actions.

• No Need for Congressional Approval:

  • Trump’s actions parallel Obama (Libya), Biden (Houthis in Yemen), and Jefferson (Barbary pirates)—all undertook military actions without prior congressional consent.

9. The Real Danger: Politicizing Military Loyalty

• Constitutionally, Trump’s Actions Are Lawful:

  • Owens underscores, “Any arguments against his policies must be made in terms of prudence, not the Constitution or the law.” (16:50)

• Opposition Must Not Undermine Civilian Control:

  • “It should be needless to say—although today, sadly, it isn’t—that opposition to Trump’s policies should be expressed in a way that is careful not to undermine the principle of civilian control of the military that is fundamental to US civil–military relations.” (17:00)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The more often the civilians prevail, the healthier civil–military relations are assessed to be—at least until the presidency of Donald Trump.” (01:30, Owens)
• “Praetorianism is incompatible with republican government.” (04:10, Owens)
• “Refuse illegal orders.” (06:21, Sen. Mark Kelly, video)
• “We have your back.” (06:45, Lawmakers’ video)
• “The video was clearly political in nature and is likely to foster confusion within military ranks.” (07:52, Owens)
• “Military leaders, not legislators, are responsible for issuing guidance to troops on how to evaluate or report questionable orders.” (09:35, Owens)
• “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier who deserts…while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?” (11:35, quoting Lincoln)
• “US troops have been so employed since the beginning of our Republic.” (13:15, Owens)
• “The president’s power to use both regulars and militia remained undisturbed by the Posse Comitatus Act.” (15:44, quoting Brinckerhoff)
• “Any arguments against his policies must be made in terms of prudence, not the Constitution or the law.” (16:50, Owens)
• “It should be needless to say—although today, sadly, it isn’t—that opposition to Trump’s policies should be expressed in a way that is careful not to undermine the principle of civilian control...” (17:00, Owens)

Timeline of Important Segments

• 00:00-02:00 — Introduction to civilian control of military; historical overview
• 02:00-05:00 — Trump-era disputes; ‘praetorianism’ defined and contextualized
• 05:30-09:30 — Lawmakers’ “refuse illegal orders” video; civil–military blurring
• 10:00-12:00 — Civil War parallels; Lincoln, Copperheads, and the limits of dissent
• 13:15-16:00 — Precedent for use of military domestically; historical and statutory examples
• 16:00-17:10 — Concluding argument: legality vs. prudence; dangers of politicizing civil–military relations

Final Thoughts

Owens argues that civilian control over the military must be preserved as a bedrock constitutional principle, regardless of partisanship or policy disputes. Attempts by politicians or public figures to appeal directly to military personnel blur the critical line between legal dissent and dangerous insubordination, threatening the fabric of democratic norms.

He urges that opposition to policy—even in heated times—must always be careful to keep faith with the principle of civilian direction of the military, lest the republic drift toward praetorian governance.