Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Are there any historical precedents for using US cities as military training grounds?
Executive Summary
President Donald Trump’s recent call to use U.S. cities as “training grounds” for the military revives a long-standing and contested debate about domestic military operations, with historical precedents including 19th-century deployments, the Insurrection Act, the classified Garden Plot plan of 1968, and limited urban training by Marines in the 1990s [1] [2] [3]. Legal scholars, military historians and civil liberties advocates warn that deploying active-duty forces for routine domestic training or policing would face immediate legal, constitutional and political barriers and echoes practices typically associated with authoritarian regimes [4] [5] [6].
1. Why the Idea Resonates — Politically Charged Rhetoric and a Short History Lesson
Trump’s statement framing cities such as Los Angeles, Portland and New York as useful “training grounds” taps into long-standing anxieties about urban unrest and domestic disorder; this rhetoric draws on historical incidents like the Boston Massacre and the Insurrection Act of 1807 that established federal military recourse against domestic insurrection [1]. The Insurrection Act remains a legal mechanism but has been used sparingly; modern invocations, such as deployment during the 1992 Los Angeles unrest, show how fraught and exceptional such measures have been when applied [1]. Advocates of stronger domestic military roles frame this as restoring order; opponents view it as a dangerous erosion of civil-military boundaries.
2. Concrete Precedents — Garden Plot and Past Urban Preparedness Plans
In 1968 the Army produced a classified contingency plan nicknamed Garden Plot to coordinate federal response to civil unrest in multiple cities, reflecting Cold War-era planning for urban disorder; portions of that framework were activated during the 1992 Los Angeles riots [2]. That planning demonstrated the Army’s institutional awareness of urban challenges, but it was conceived as a contingency for severe breakdowns of civil order, not routine training. The historical record therefore shows institutional planning for urban intervention under emergency conditions, rather than precedent for using cities as regular training facilities.
3. Training Inside Cities — Past Military Exercises and Experiments
The Marines’ documented urban-warfare training in U.S. cities in the late 1990s, including exercises in Chicago as part of a two-year experiment, illustrates a narrower precedent for learning about urban operations while attempting to limit civilian harm [3]. These experiments focused on tactics, communications and minimizing civilian impact in potential overseas urban battlefields, not on domestic law enforcement. That distinction matters legally and politically: training for combat in urban terrain differs from using troops to police American streets, which raises constitutional and statutory restrictions.
4. Legal Lines — The Insurrection Act and the Risk of Constitutional Clash
Legal experts cited by recent reporting emphasize that routine domestic use of active-duty forces for policing or chronic training in civilian neighborhoods would likely trigger legal challenges under the Posse Comitatus principles and the Insurrection Act’s narrow exceptions [4] [5]. The availability of the Insurrection Act does not create carte blanche; its historical use has been limited and contested. Courts and Congress have stepped in historically to rebalance civil-military roles, and any large-scale domestic deployment for training would be litigated as an overreach of executive authority.
5. Political and Civil Liberties Pushback — Framing and Dangers
Journalistic and legal analyses warn that framing U.S. cities as convenient training grounds echoes patterns seen in authoritarian states where militaries are normalized in civilian life, and that civil liberties organizations will view such deployments as a threat to democratic norms [5]. Political backlash is predictable from city officials, state governors and civil rights groups, who have opposed prior federal military interventions in cities. The public optics of soldiers maneuvering in neighborhoods with training objectives would likely catalyze immediate political resistance.
6. Military Culture and Practical Constraints — Who Would Agree?
Within the armed forces there are mixed impulses: readiness advocates emphasize preparedness for urban combat, while military leaders and legal advisors are wary of domestic missions that erode discipline, civilian trust and legal constraints [6] [2]. Past experiments by the Marines show institutional interest in urban training, but the Defense Department has long treated domestic deployment as exceptional, requiring clear legal authorization, civil-military coordination and risk mitigation to avoid harm to civilians or the appearance of partisanship.
7. Big Picture: Precedent Exists but Context Is Crucial
Historical precedents for military presence in U.S. cities exist, but they are limited, context-dependent, and often emergency-driven rather than routine training programs; Garden Plot and Marine urban experiments illustrate contingency planning and tactical learning, not an established practice of city-as-training-ground [2] [3]. Contemporary proposals to normalize such activity intersect with legal prohibitions, political resistance and civil-liberties concerns, and will be evaluated against both historical uses and constitutional guardrails that have historically constrained domestic military roles [1] [4].