Link to Directive Relevant sections of the directive are included below.
Ron Chapman is a former Marine Corps judge Advocate and has significant experience training United States Marines on use-of-force guidelines, including DOD 5240.1
The Expanding Reach of Military Power on U.S. Soil: A Glimpse into DoD Directive 5240.01
When most people think about military power in America, they think about foreign threats—the military as a shield against forces outside our borders. But what happens when that military power starts turning inward? We’ve got laws for that: the Posse Comitatus Act, a piece of legislation from 1878, specifically limits the federal government’s ability to use the armed forces for domestic law enforcement. It’s a cornerstone of American democracy, a way to ensure that our government doesn’t blur the line between military and police—a line that keeps us from becoming a country where soldiers patrol our streets.
That line was blurred by these three changes to the DOD Directive for the Use of Force:
Authorizing military action “when lives are in danger” provided it’s authorized by an official.
Lethal assistance is permissible provided it’s IAW DoDD 5210.56 which is the DOD’s Use of Force Policy.
BONUS: The NSA and other intelligence organizations may share collection on U.S. Citizens provided they determine a violation of law
The DoD’s recent Directive 5240.01, though, feels like a quiet step in the opposite direction. It essentially broadens the military’s authority to aid law enforcement during “civil disturbances.” Now, let’s unpack what that means and why it matters. The Directive authorizes support in “exigent circumstances,” like natural disasters or large-scale violence.
Ready for More Groundbreaking Investigations into Government Actions?
But civil disturbance? That’s a term with a lot of room for interpretation.
Take, for example, the events of January 6th, a day that will likely live in our memories—and the history books—for a long time. It’s not hard to imagine how a future administration might use this Directive to call in the troops if something like that were to happen again. Under the current directive, we’re looking at a situation where, if civil disorder escalates, the Secretary of Defense could approve the use of military assets in the streets. And if the situation calls for it, there’s even potential for deadly force.
Now, deadly force is a serious step. To authorize it against U.S. citizens—well, that should require a pretty high bar. And yet, in this Directive, we see the criteria loosened, with authority trickling down to military heads and senior officials.
The door is open for them to act swiftly, especially if there’s a perceived threat to life. It’s a fast-track process designed to give the military flexibility in chaotic situations, but at what cost? This could place the military in direct confrontation with civilians on U.S. soil.
Did you know that the Feds created an encrypted cell phone company to catch criminals and monitor their communications? Read About it in Ron’s Book
Then we have the September 27th update, which feels like a preparation for something bigger. Why would the DoD suddenly need clearer guidelines on using force, particularly in response to civil unrest? Are they expecting something? Preparing for the unthinkable—like a coup or large-scale insurrection? This update suggests a shift towards readiness, a proactive stance, where military intervention could very well become a tool in maintaining “order.” And that sounds a lot like the prelude to government overreach.
It’s not just about enforcing the law; it’s about setting up a system that can quickly transition to military action. We’re not talking about disaster relief or a one-off situation. This Directive reads like a playbook for long-term domestic military engagement. So as we consider the implications of Directive 5240.01, we should remember that laws are only as good as the people enforcing them—and the power they’re given. If we start seeing the military on U.S. soil, positioned to “restore order” or confront “civil disturbances,” we might want to ask: Where does it end? And at what point do we stop being civilians in a democracy and start becoming citizens in a security state?
Use of Force: Lessons from the Past
When we talk about using the military for domestic issues, we’re talking about a serious step—one that often comes with unintended consequences. The term “civil disturbance” sounds tame, almost clinical, but its history in America is anything but. And when military force has been used to manage these situations, it hasn’t always gone well.
Consider Kent State University in 1970. It was a time of heavy anti-war protests across the country, with young people taking to the streets to challenge U.S. involvement in Vietnam. On May 4, Ohio National Guard troops were called in to quell a protest. There was no real plan—just a directive to maintain order. But somewhere in that chaotic mix of protestors, tear gas, and confusion, guardsmen fired on the unarmed students. Four young Americans were killed, nine others wounded, in a tragic escalation of force. This wasn’t an attack on the enemy—it was an attack on American citizens exercising their rights. Kent State became a symbol of what can go wrong when the military’s tools are used in civilian settings, a haunting reminder that lethal force should be the very last resort.
This wasn’t the first, and certainly not the last, time force was used in response to civil unrest. Take the 1967 Detroit riots, part of what came to be known as the “Long, Hot Summer” of riots in over 150 American cities. When state and federal troops were deployed, Detroit looked more like a war zone than an American city. Buildings burned, tanks rolled down streets, and there were 43 deaths, many of them civilians caught in the crossfire. These were citizens who, while reacting to systemic inequalities, found themselves under military control in their own neighborhoods.
