A guest editorial in the New York Times, “It’s Trump’s Military Now” (August 14, 2025) argues that “by ordering 800 National Guard troops to Washington, on the pretext of an illusory crime wave, President Trump has further dragged the U.S. military into domestic law enforcement.” Which made us wonder how residents of Puerto Rican would feel about the United States military patrolling our own streets to suppress crime. Our violent crime rate IS, after all, higher than the US average. And every time a tourist from the mainland is murdered here, as Kevin Mares was on August 10 in La Perla while he was here to attend a Bad Bunny concert, it reverberates throughout the US, depressing tourism.
But how would we feel about federal troops having boots on the ground here, as they now do in Washington, DC? Residents of Puerto Rico, and tourists, like their counterparts in Washington, are free to debate whether our crime rate is illusory or real. It seems pretty real to us. And, unless you live under a rock in Dorado, you likely have come to the same conclusion.
The President sees it too. Hence his deployment of troops to help fight crime in Washington, DC. But for some reason that escapes us, the New York Times’ guest editorial writers lament that military leaders are not man (or woman) enough to disobey that order. What!? Yes. The guest editorial writers actually argue that the US military can and should take it upon itself to decide whether to obey a lawful order issued by the President. We think that is a startlingly dangerous suggestion.
Article Two of the United States Constitution designates the President—and only the President—as Commander-in-Chief of our nation’s armed forces. This was a practical decision by the United States’ founding fathers. While Article One of the Constitution enumerates the declaration of war as a power reserved to Congress, the drafters of the US Constitution wisely concluded that command of the military cannot be done by committee.
Federal courts have issued a long list of decisions confirming the President’s nearly unfettered authority to command the military as the President deems necessary, even in domestic matters. Indeed, from George Washington’s use of the military in then-frontier Appalachia to quell the Whiskey Rebellion, to Dwight Eisenhower’s use of the military to enforce court-mandated integration in southern US schools, the President’s command of the military is a fundamental, constitutional Presidential power. Ultimately, the US military is a significant guarantor of the President’s oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
But the authors of the New York Times guest editorial argue otherwise and actually advocate, in our opinion perilously, a departure from the settled Constitutional order. In apparent confusion, the guest editorial writers turn that settled order on its head. They project their distaste that “general officers no longer seem to see themselves as guardians of the constitutional order” because they didn’t stand up to the President when he ordered them to deploy troops to fight crime in Washington.
Huh?
Do we want military officers to be free to disobey Presidential orders? Let’s put that to a simple test, shall we? It is almost certain that many members and officers of the Arkansas National Guard were opposed to school integration when President Eisenhower federalized them to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education. Luckily nobody asked them for their opinion. They were ordered by the President to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, over the angry protests of Arkansas’ governor and many of its citizens. And by God, they did their duty.
In the United States’ Constitutional system, of which Puerto Rico has been a part since 1898, we are governed by elected civilians, not by military leaders. And one of those elected leaders, the President, has a sacred obligation to defend, along with the rest of the nation, Puerto Rico, our laws, and our people. Without that protection, Puerto Rico and, indeed, the entire United States, might be subject to the whims of unelected military juntas. We suggest that our friends in Venezuela and many other countries around the world look at Puerto Rico with envy that we enjoy the protections afforded by the US Constitution.
The US military is not beholden to a political agenda. Military commanders must take lawful orders from the Commander-in-Chief regardless of their own political beliefs. To allow otherwise would result in confusion, weakness, and, ultimately, endless chaos under a multitude of military strong men who are bent on subjecting people to their unelected whims. Again, we’re looking at you, Venezuela.
And in the end, the President is ultimately subject to the American people. It is true, because we are not a state, that we cannot vote for President. And maybe that can and should someday change. But the President is elected by our brothers and sisters on the mainland and commands the military in our name also. And let’s not forget that many, many residents of Puerto Rico serve and have served in our nation’s military. For 127 years, we have been protected from aggressive enemies by the US military, commanded by a US President. The US military is a professional institution guided by constitutional principles and a commitment to neutrality. It is as much ours as it is the rest of the nation’s.
The President has exercised his Constitutional duty to protect Washington, DC. If he chooses to also deploy the military to our island to assist our local law enforcement agencies in their mission to protect us from predators, why should we object? Maybe we should be grateful instead. Having citizen soldiers here helping our police to maintain order and reduce random, violent crime sounds like something maybe we should hope for.
We’re guessing that the New York Times guest editorial writers haven’t been the victims of violent crime. Or that they just don’t care that most of us will never enjoy the privilege of having a personal security detail. But whether you think crime is rampant or you live under a rock in Dorado, we should all be able to agree that military commanders should not be allowed to pick and choose the orders they will follow or disregard. When our Commander-in-Chief issues a legal order to our military pursuant to Article Two of the Constitution, they must obey it. And if the President deploys troops to help us reduce violent crime here, I want them to obey that order.
I don’t care if the New York Times’ guest editorial writers say otherwise.