Verifying MAGA's DoD Policy Viral Claims

Earlier this month, the former president told Fox News that the “domestic enemy of the United States…is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries” when asked if he “expects chaos on Election Day.” He doubled down on the sensational rhetoric, adding that a “smart president” could handle it. He also suggested that the military would intervene to “deal with” these “enemies” if they disrupt Election Day. “I think it should be handled very easily by the National Guard if necessary or by the military if it's really necessary, because they can't let that happen,” he said.

Why is DoD Directive 5240.01 Trending?

However, less than two weeks before Election Day, the focus on not Trump but Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as “America’s Hitler” has taken over. This morning, a matter that had been widely speculated on since the end of September once again caused a stir in the right-wing corners of social media. “October Surprise Joe Biden/Kamala Harris just enforced DoD Directive 5240.01, giving the Pentagon for the first time in history the power to use lethal force to kill Americans on U.S. soil who are protesting government policies. You are literally Hitler! America's Hitler! Panic,” one MAGA supporter tweeted on X/Twitter, sharing screenshots of the Department of Defense directive in question.

Also read | Tim Walz accuses Trump's “collapse” billionaire running mate Elon Musk of buying an election with Obama

Concerned netizens questioned how the incumbent government could simply push for such a questionable policy on September 27 – in the days before the November elections. However, it should be noted that this particular policy is not a newly issued document. It is readily available to the public on the official Department of Defense Senior Intelligence Oversight website and is actually a revised edition of the directive originally issued in 2007.

What is the “deadly force” clause about?

With the new update, an additional clause has been added to the “Authorization of the Secretary of Defense” section in the “Level of Authority” paragraph: “Assist in response with assets with potential for lethality or in any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that the provision of the requested means.” Assistance may involve the use of force likely to result in deadly force, including death or serious bodily harm. This includes any assistance to civilian law enforcement officers in situations where confrontation between civilian law enforcement agencies and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably expected. Such use of force must be consistent with DoDD 5210.56 and may be further limited depending on the specifics of the assistance requested.”

The revised issuance of the policy ultimately sparked a heated online discussion among far-right internet consumers that focused on two findings. In the first case, users accused the Defense Department of possible planned attacks against Americans on US soil. According to the second point, the conversation was particularly fueled by the focus on the term “lethal force” in the document, with only a few days left until the 2024 election.

Former Texas congressman Ron Paul initially sparked the debate on his YouTube show Liberty Report, claiming the policy was turning the country into a “police state.” Maryland Republican Congressman Andy Harris also told Newsmax last week that Democrats were making the same move Trump was said to be making. “This is exactly what the Democrats said Trump would do. And they do it. That means that after an election they could declare a national emergency and literally call out the army in the United States.”

Former Trump national security adviser and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was one of many who contributed to the growing trend of scrutinizing the policy overhaul. He tweeted the update to more than a million of his followers on X.

Pentagon and military policy experts comment on the rumors

Contrary to these emerging claims, the Pentagon and military policy experts clarified the matter to The War Horse on Wednesday evening (US time). “The provisions in [the directive] are not new and do not authorize the Secretary of Defense to use lethal force against U.S. citizens, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media,” said Defense Department spokeswoman Sue Gough.

Similarly, Joseph Nunn, an attorney with the Liberty & National Security Program at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, countered Michael Flynn's comments. “There’s nothing here,” he told the outlet. “People like Michael Flynn should know how to read a DOD brief.”

The “award-winning nonprofit newsroom that educates the public about the military through military news” further debunks the far-right conspiracy theories and unrest and states that the revised policy “does not give the military any new powers.” Nunn also pointed out: “This is not an independent source of authority. We should really look at this as an administrative safeguard being put in place.

Nunn, who is also an expert on domestic military operations, explained: “A reference to lethal force in a policy like this doesn't mean they're planning on having snipers on rooftops in covert operations. The nature of law enforcement sometimes requires the use of lethal force.” The outlet reveals that the reference to “lethal force” in the now widely circulated directive suggests that the Secretary of Defense “must now authorize military intelligence assistance to civilian law enforcement when deadly force could be involved.”

Also read | Diddy Threatened to Kill 19-Year-Old College Student: New Lawsuit

In addition, the detailed report addresses the right-wing extremists' second point of contention: Why did the language change weeks before the election?

Gough, the Ministry of Defense spokesman, said: “The republication of 5240.01 was part of the normal course of the department's business to regularly update guidance and directives” and that it was “in no way related to the election or any other event”.

“It is not uncommon to update Department of Defense regulations,” acknowledged Rise Brooks, a political science professor at Marquette University. “It doesn’t signal any nefarious intent.”

DOD Directive 5240.01 was last updated through periodic updates in 2020, prior to revision by the Biden Administration in September 2024. Additionally, it is not the only policy revised or enacted in the weeks leading up to the election.

Periodically revised DoD Directive 5240.01 compared to the Posse Comitatus Act

Another common accusation online, also repeated by Flynn, is that Directive 5240.01 violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which “excludes federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement unless specifically authorized by law.” said the Brennan Center for Justice. Contrary to claims circulating online, the Defense Department's Gough said, “The updated edition remains consistent with the Department of Defense's compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act, its commitment to civil rights, and support of other safeguards to protect the American people.”

Meanwhile, Risa Brooks reiterated the view that these bubbling conspiracies and rumors are politically motivated. “This kind of politicization, this idea of ​​sowing distrust in the military for partisan political gain, is really destructive.” There is a motive. There is something to be gained by spreading these rumors.”

Still, The War Horse underscores that, as Andy Harris said, given her potential election victory, the Democratic presidential nominee “could declare a national emergency and literally call out the army in the United States” if she wanted. The Insurrection Act would reportedly give her presidential authority to temporarily suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, leaving the description of a rebellion up to the president's understanding. “The Insurrection Act contains virtually no procedural safeguards,” Nunn says.