LETTER: Presidents and the National Guard

As a U.S. military veteran, I feel compelled to respond to the Nov. 28 letter by Tony Kyriacou headlined “Order out.”

Having served, I know first-hand the importance of distinguishing between lawful and unlawful orders, and I cannot let stand the reckless claim that President Donald Trump is a tyrant simply because he has ordered National Guard units into certain cities.

Service members, including those in the National Guard, are taught to obey lawful orders and refuse manifestly unlawful ones. This principle, rooted in the Nuremberg trials and codified in U.S. military law, makes clear that “just following orders” is never a defense for illegal actions. Every recruit swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not any individual leader, and the obligation to obey commands applies only according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

What Mr. Kyriacou’s letter ignores is that deploying Guard troops to restore civil order, reduce crime or support ICE in arresting and deporting illegal aliens is a lawful use of executive authority. It is not tyranny.

In fact, Democratic presidents have done the same: President Lyndon Johnson ordered Guard troops into Detroit during the 1967 riots; President John F. Kennedy used them to enforce desegregation in the South; and President Barack Obama ordered 1,200 Guard troops to the southern border in 2010. Those troops provided surveillance and intelligence support that directly aided federal agents in apprehending and deporting illegal aliens.

Mr. Obama also presided over more deportations than any other president in U.S. history — more than 3 million, far exceeding Mr. Trump’s totals. These precedents prove that such deployments and enforcement actions are recognized tools of executive authority across party lines.

The Guard exists to protect civil order and national security, and pretending otherwise undermines both history and the Constitution. Mr. Kyriacou’s implication that President Trump is a tyrant for carrying out lawful duties is not grounded in fact. It is simply another example of partisan distortion that ignores precedent and reality.