Fact check: Did Trump say to all the generals today that our city's are the "enemy from within" and the military should use our city's as "training grounds"

1. What was claimed and why it matters: a stark reframing of domestic security

Multiple accounts report Trump framed civil unrest or violence in certain American cities as an internal invasion and urged that the military could be used domestically in response, a framing that transforms criminal justice and public-safety issues into national defense problems ^{[1] [4]}. The more provocative element across reports is the suggestion to use U.S. cities as training grounds for troops or National Guard forces, language that raises constitutional and civil-liberties questions because deploying military forces for domestic law enforcement is legally constrained and politically sensitive ^{[5] [3]}.

2. What the sources say about the exact phrasing and audience reaction

The Everett Post and several other outlets quote or paraphrase Trump using terms like “enemy within” or “invasion from within,” and explicitly attribute a recommendation to use dangerous cities as training grounds for the military, including a reported exchange with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ^{[1] [5] [2]}. Other pieces emphasize that the remarks were delivered to a mostly silent room of generals, underlining a lack of enthusiasm or public endorsement from military leadership and suggesting discomfort among professional officers ^{[6] [7]}.

3. Corroboration across outlets: consistent core claim, variance on details

All three source groups converge on the main elements: Trump spoke to top military officials on September 30, 2025, described serious domestic threats as an internal enemy, and proposed more active use of the armed forces in U.S. cities, including framing them as training opportunities ^{[8] [4] [3]}. Differences emerge in what was quoted verbatim, whether the “training grounds” line was presented as a literal policy proposal or hyperbole, and in emphasis—some outlets foregrounded the policy implications while others stressed the political theater around Defense Secretary Hegseth’s remarks ^{[5] [7]}.

4. Legal and institutional context the reports omit or imply

Reports note the provocative nature of deploying federal military personnel domestically but provide limited legal analysis; the Posse Comitatus Act and other constraints on military involvement in civilian law enforcement become relevant yet were not deeply explored in the immediate coverage, leaving readers without a clear sense of legal feasibility ^{[1] [2]}. The mention of National Guard usage and training implies state-federal complexity and different legal authorities, a nuance reported briefly but not comprehensively across the pieces ^{[5] [3]}.

5. How the Pentagon and military leaders were portrayed reacting to the idea

Coverage repeatedly notes an unusually quiet reception from military leaders, suggesting institutional discomfort with reframing domestic unrest as a mission for conventional forces; some articles highlight that the proposal clashed with expectations for military roles and raised internal concerns about politicization of the armed forces ^{[6] [7]}. The presence of Defense Secretary Hegseth and his agenda—reported as emphasizing a “warrior ethos” and reduction of senior officers—frames the meeting as both personnel policy and operational direction, complicating interpretation ^{[8] [3]}.

6. Political and rhetorical framing across outlets: motives and agendas visible

The Everett Post and other outlets emphasize the hawkish, campaign-style rhetoric and suggest the comments align with a broader political strategy of law-and-order posturing, while some reports focus on the security rationale offered by the administration and Hegseth’s insistence on reorienting the military toward domestic threats ^{[5] [4]}. Readers should note potential editorial slants: headlines highlighting “enemy within” or “training grounds” aim to provoke, and pieces differ in whether they treat the language as literal policy or inflammatory rhetoric.

7. Bottom line and outstanding questions for readers to watch

The reporting from September 30, 2025, consistently documents Trump’s statements framing certain cities as an internal threat and proposing their use as training grounds for U.S. forces, but immediate coverage leaves unresolved legal, operational, and political questions about implementation and military acceptance ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Key follow-ups to watch include formal Pentagon responses, legal assessments of domestic military use, state governors’ reactions regarding National Guard deployment, and any subsequent policy directives that would move rhetoric toward action ^{[5] [6]}.

8. Recommendation for readers seeking clarity amid partisan spins

To judge claims and implications responsibly, consult the original meeting transcripts or Pentagon statements when released, compare immediate reporting (as cited here) with later, more detailed legal and policy analyses, and treat the most sensational quotes as starting points for investigation rather than final determinations. The contemporaneous articles document the core assertions—“enemy from within” and “training grounds”—but do not yet resolve whether these were rhetorical flourishes or concrete policy directives ^{[8] [4]}.