WASHINGTON, D.C. (KGUN) — This morning at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) sharply questioned senior Defense Department officials about President Trump’s Sept. 30 remark suggesting some “dangerous cities” be used “as training grounds” for the National Guard.
Watch Below:
Kelly read the president’s line to witnesses — “I told Pete we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military National Guard” — and asked whether the Department of Defense has any policy authorizing “using civilian communities as training grounds and American citizens as training tools.”
General Gregory M. Guillot, USAF, testifying for the Pentagon, replied unequivocally: “No, Senator, there is not.” Guillot said there is no DOD precedent for conducting combat-oriented training in American communities and that he had not been consulted or directed to use any U.S. city for training. He added that NORTHCOM has not designated an American city as a training ground.
When Kelly asked how troops would be expected to perceive civilians if a city were treated as a training ground, Guillot stressed the current guidance under Title 10 deployments: the mission is narrowly defined and “to protect federal buildings.” He pointed to “very clear guidance” and daily reinforcement of mission limits, and said de-escalation is the first step in the standing rules for the use of force.
Pressed directly — “Would it ever be okay to regard U.S. citizens as adversaries or enemies?” — Guillot answered, “Our initial response is no,” though he acknowledged legal hypotheticals in the face of illegal activity and the authorities that might apply. Kelly pushed back, saying labeling cities as training grounds “inherently put civilians in a position of being an adversary or an enemy.”
The exchange concluded with Kelly turning his questions to the Pentagon’s deputy general counsel, introducing a new line of inquiry into the legal authorities and limits for domestic deployments.
Kelly’s line of questioning reflected broader concerns on the committee about the potential militarization of domestic responses and the implications of presidential comments on how service members understand their role in U.S. communities.
