National Guard Members Privately Question Trump’s Expanding Domestic Deployments

This article was originally published by NPR. Read the original article here.

As President Trump expands the use of the National Guard across U.S. cities, a small group of Ohio service members is quietly expressing unease in a private encrypted chat — reflecting broader anxiety among National Guard troops about the shifting role of the Guard in American life.

Growing Unease in the Ranks

This summer, the Trump administration began dispatching National Guard units to several Democratic-led cities, citing the need to combat violent crime and secure federal immigration facilities. But for some Ohio Guard members, those missions have raised troubling questions.

“I went to a dark place when they sent troops to Los Angeles, then Washington, D.C., and now Chicago,” said J, an Ohio National Guard member who spoke to NPR on condition of anonymity. “This isn’t what we signed up for. It’s completely outside normal operations.”

The deployments began after anti-ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles, followed by expanded Guard presence in D.C., where roughly 2,300 troops still patrol the streets. Plans for additional deployments — to Chicago, Portland, Memphis, and cities in Louisiana and Missouri — have since sparked legal disputes that remain unresolved.

Within their private Signal group chat, J and several fellow members — identified only as C and A — say they’ve turned to each other to process growing uncertainty and moral tension about what’s happening. All three belong to the same Ohio unit and spoke to NPR on the condition that they not be named, citing fears of retaliation.

“I’ve done humanitarian missions where we helped communities rebuild — that’s what drew me to the Guard,” J said. “But now you’re asking me to stand in the streets of D.C. with a weapon, intimidating unhoused people. It’s crushing.”

A Broader Movement of Conscience

Their concerns echo those of service members elsewhere. The nonprofit About Face, a nonpartisan organization made up of post-9/11 veterans and active personnel, says it has heard from more than 100 current troops in recent weeks who are questioning the legality and morality of their assignments.

“In military culture, it’s easy to think you’re the only one who feels uneasy,” said Brittany Ramos DeBarros, About Face’s executive director and an Afghanistan veteran. The group has launched an outreach campaign — through flyers, posters, and billboards — encouraging Guard members to seek confidential guidance.

“We help people weigh the risks of following their conscience,” DeBarros said. “But we also talk about the cost of not doing so. Many of us who served overseas live with that cost every day.”

Official Response

The Pentagon and the White House defended the president’s use of the National Guard when contacted for comment.

“Our great Guardsmen serve to defend the nation and the American people,” said Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson in a statement. “We’re proud of their service and confident in their ability to execute all lawful orders.”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called the deployments “a lawful exercise of presidential authority to protect federal personnel and property,” and criticized Democratic leaders for “failing to prevent violence against law enforcement.”

Inside the Signal Chat

The Ohio group’s private chat began soon after Trump’s early executive orders reshaped parts of the military bureaucracy. Initially, the messages focused on questions — not politics.

“It’s not even about taking sides,” said A. “It’s just, ‘what’s going on?’ — because these orders don’t look like what we’re used to.”

Over time, as deployments multiplied, the chat grew to a dozen members from their unit. Their discussions have increasingly focused on the president’s rhetoric about the Guard and the growing list of domestic assignments.

Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, has supported sending Ohio troops to assist federal operations, with roughly 150 currently stationed in D.C. The three Guardsmen say they declined those voluntary orders, describing them as unusually vague.

“In the past, we always knew why we were going somewhere — what the mission was, what to expect,” A said. “This time, there were no clear answers.”

A Crisis of Faith and Identity

For A, C, and J, the Guard was once a pathway to purpose: paying for school, finding direction, or serving their country. Now, they’re questioning whether to continue.

“The only reason I’m finishing my contract is because my voice still matters right now,” J said. “I want to use it to do some good.”

C, a longtime member, has found herself wrestling with a more personal conflict. “I’ve served on missions I didn’t agree with before,” she said. “But this feels different. I’ve been in therapy, trying to figure out where my line is. Is this undoing everything I thought I was fighting for?”

They’ve also felt public hostility toward the Guard in their own communities. “It’s painful,” C said. “What’s happening now runs so counter to everything we were taught about service and doctrine.”

Ethical Boundaries and the Constitution

The administration has openly discussed using Guard troops for mass deportations — a move that legal experts say would violate U.S. law. The idea has deeply unsettled these Ohio members.

“There’s no way I’d take part in that,” said J. “At some point, people will have to answer for what’s happening, and I don’t want to be complicit.”

A echoed that sentiment: “You have to know your boundaries — what you’re willing to do, and what you’re not. And be ready to face the cost.”

Even seemingly benign “presence patrols” — troops walking through city streets — have sparked discomfort. “It’s fearmongering,” J said. “You send 50 uniformed troops to a neighborhood, and people get the message.”

DeBarros agreed, drawing parallels to her own service. “In Afghanistan, we’d do presence patrols just to show we were there — to remind people we were watching. It’s a tactic of control.”

Remembering the Oath

C says she keeps returning to the words she swore when she joined. “I took an oath to the Constitution, not to a person,” she said. “That’s what I’d tell every Guard member and every citizen: remember what that oath means. Keep asking questions. Keep talking.”