In a recent interview, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel expressed concerns about the potential consequences of deploying National Guard troops to manage protests in large American cities.
Reflecting on the tragic events at Kent State University in 1970, Hagel warned that sending in troops could lead to the "loss of life" and the possibility of violence spiraling out of control.
His remarks raised alarms about a repeat of the tragic incident where four students were killed, and nine others were injured by National Guard troops during a protest against the Vietnam War.
As protests continued to rock cities like Los Angeles, the idea of deploying federal forces became a focal point of debate. Hagel, a former Republican senator and Army veteran, weighed in on the risks of using military force in situations where civilian protests are involved.
When asked by CBS News correspondent Ed O’Keefe about his concerns, Hagel pointed to the events of Kent State, emphasizing the lack of training that National Guard troops had at the time.
He argued that poorly trained troops, under pressure, could act in ways that would lead to tragic consequences. “The National Guard opened up on students and killed students — probably because they weren’t trained,” Hagel said, describing the panic and lack of preparation that led to the deadly incident.
While Hagel’s historical perspective is valid, his concerns about the current situation appear to overlook key aspects of modern law enforcement and the broader context in which these protests are occurring.
President Donald Trump and his allies, including GOP figures like Pete Hegseth, have consistently pushed for a strong stance on law and order, especially when faced with escalating violence in American cities.
Trump has made it clear that the use of federal forces, including National Guard troops and Marines, is necessary to protect citizens and property from violent protesters, while maintaining a firm stance on maintaining public safety.
Trump's position on using force to address civil unrest is grounded in the principle of law and order, a cornerstone of his administration’s domestic policy.
While Hagel’s concerns are rooted in a desire to avoid unnecessary violence, they fail to recognize the broader need for the federal government to intervene in situations where local authorities are either unwilling or unable to maintain order.
The goal is not to escalate violence, but to prevent it from reaching the levels seen in other countries where protests have spiraled out of control. The deployment of troops in Los Angeles, for example, was a response to widespread unrest that was threatening public safety.
Hagel’s reflection on the Kent State shooting raises an important point about the necessity of proper training for those deployed in high-stress situations.
However, it is also essential to note that the National Guard today is far more experienced and better trained than it was in the 1970s. Today, the Guard is equipped with a greater understanding of how to manage protests, and modern military protocols prioritize minimizing civilian harm.
Trump’s administration has also worked to ensure that military personnel are deployed with clear rules of engagement that focus on protecting life and property without overstepping their mandate.
Trump’s warnings to potential protesters are part of this broader strategy to maintain peace while protecting American citizens and institutions. In an Oval Office statement on Tuesday, Trump made it clear that those planning to protest during the upcoming military parade in Washington, D.C., would face “very big force.”
“If there’s any protester who wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,” Trump declared, underscoring the seriousness of his commitment to maintaining law and order.
For the Trump administration, ensuring that protests do not turn violent is a matter of national security. Protests that turn into riots—resulting in looting, destruction of property, and assaults on law enforcement officers—are seen as an existential threat to the safety of citizens and the stability of the nation.
Trump’s emphasis on deploying force when necessary is consistent with his broader philosophy of protecting American citizens, ensuring that violent elements are dealt with swiftly, and sending a clear message that lawlessness will not be tolerated.
Pete Hegseth, a prominent voice in the GOP, has also supported the use of federal forces to curb unrest, particularly in cities like Los Angeles. Hegseth, known for his support of Trump’s policies on military and law enforcement, has long been a vocal advocate for using the National Guard and active-duty military when local authorities fail to restore order.
For Hegseth and others in the GOP, the idea of using federal troops is not about suppressing peaceful protest but about protecting the public from the increasingly violent elements of demonstrations that seek to undermine the rule of law.
While critics like Hagel express concerns about the potential for violence, the truth remains that the risks of doing nothing in the face of escalating unrest are far greater.
Trump and Hegseth have consistently argued that allowing riots and violence to continue unchecked only emboldens extremists and puts innocent lives at risk.
In Los Angeles, where protests have disrupted neighborhoods and endangered citizens, the presence of National Guard troops provides a much-needed measure of stability.
Hegseth’s advocacy for this approach reflects the broader GOP commitment to keeping American streets safe and ensuring that protests do not spiral into chaos.
Trump’s tough stance on protestors also serves as a reminder that the president is unwavering in his resolve to defend American values, including the rule of law, freedom of speech, and the right to peacefully assemble.
However, Trump and his supporters are clear in stating that the right to protest does not extend to violence, destruction, or the endangerment of others.
Trump’s administration has repeatedly emphasized that when protests turn violent, it is the responsibility of the federal government to restore order and protect citizens from harm.
In this context, the rhetoric coming from Democrats and those sympathetic to the protesters fails to acknowledge the realities on the ground. While peaceful protest is a fundamental American right, the violence and destruction seen in cities like Los Angeles cannot be ignored.
Leaders like Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass have been criticized for their reluctance to allow federal intervention, which many believe is essential for maintaining order.
This hesitation has only served to prolong the violence and exacerbate the problems faced by residents and businesses in affected areas.
The notion that the federal government should take a step back and allow local officials to handle the situation is increasingly being called into question. As protests continue to erupt across the country, it is clear that local governments—particularly in blue states like California—have not been able to effectively manage the violence.
This leaves the federal government with little choice but to step in and protect the public. Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles was not an act of aggression, but a necessary measure to ensure the safety of American citizens.
In conclusion, the concerns raised by Chuck Hagel about the potential for violence when deploying National Guard troops to quell protests are valid, but they fail to account for the changing dynamics of modern protest and law enforcement.
While the tragic events of Kent State in 1970 are a reminder of the risks associated with military intervention, they should not be used as a blanket justification for avoiding necessary actions in today’s political climate.
President Trump and the GOP, including figures like Pete Hegseth, are committed to ensuring that American streets remain safe, and that law and order prevail, even if that means deploying federal forces to protect citizens and property.
As protests continue to evolve, the Trump administration’s focus on maintaining peace, upholding the rule of law, and protecting the safety of Americans will continue to drive its actions in these volatile times.
The administration’s stance is clear: the government’s duty is to protect its people, and it will not hesitate to do so, even if it means using force to restore order in the face of lawlessness.
