Use of the National Guard

When Former Presidents Politicize the Presidency: Obama’s Misguided Attack on Trump’s Use of the National Guard

In a recent post by Occupy Democrats, former President Barack Obama once again stepped into the political spotlight - this time attacking former President Donald Trump over his deployment of the National Guard during periods of civil unrest. Obama accused Trump of “politicizing the military” and engaging in actions that were “inherently corrupting.” Yet, what is truly corrupting is not the lawful use of executive power to maintain public order, but rather the public undermining of that power by a former president who no longer holds authority and who knows better than to erode trust in the very institutions he once led.

Obama’s remarks, made on the WTF Podcast with Marc Maron, amount to more than just political commentary - they represent a dangerous precedent of post-presidential partisanship and misinformation that distorts the constitutional role of the commander-in-chief and misleads the American public about the limits and legitimacy of federal power.

The Role of the Commander-in-Chief: Constitutional, Not Corrupt

The Constitution explicitly grants the President of the United States authority as Commander in Chief of both the armed forces and, when federalized, the state National Guards. Article II, Section 2 is clear:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

This power has been used by multiple presidents - Republican and Democrat alike - when states faced riots, violence, or insurrection. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy both deployed federal troops and the National Guard to enforce civil rights laws when state governments refused to act. President Lyndon Johnson did the same in Detroit during the 1967 riots. In each case, presidents exercised their constitutional authority to maintain peace and uphold the law.

When President Trump used the National Guard to quell violence and protect federal property during riots in Portland, Chicago, and elsewhere, he was acting within the same framework - lawfully, as Commander-in-Chief, and with clear legal justification under the Insurrection Act of 1807 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code.

To label such actions “fascist” or “corrupt” is not only false - it is an intentional misrepresentation of constitutional governance.

The Inappropriateness of Presidential Interference

It is an established American tradition that former presidents refrain from public criticism of their successors, especially on active matters of governance. This tradition is rooted not in vanity but in stability - it prevents the erosion of executive credibility and maintains respect for the office itself.

When Barack Obama openly criticizes a sitting or former president for executing duties that he himself once held, it sends a conflicting message to the public and to the world. It suggests that presidential authority is not continuous or legitimate, but conditional upon partisan approval. That undermines faith in the presidency and in the peaceful transfer of power.

It is especially inappropriate given that Obama’s own administration made liberal use of military resources for civilian or political purposes - most notably through drone strikes without congressional authorization, the use of federal agents in domestic law enforcement, and unprecedented surveillance expansions under the NSA.

If the standard for “corruption” is the use of military or paramilitary power within the scope of federal law, then Obama’s record deserves equal scrutiny. The difference? The media and partisan activists did not call his actions “fascist.”

Selective Outrage: The Hypocrisy of Political Memory

Obama’s critique is steeped in selective outrage. During his presidency, the National Guard was deployed domestically more than a dozen times, including during the Baltimore riots of 2015, where armed troops patrolled American streets under his administration’s watch. Those deployments were not denounced as “authoritarian.” Instead, they were framed as necessary measures to restore peace and protect property.

The sudden rebranding of such deployments as “corrupt” or “fascist” under a Republican president reveals a partisan double standard. What was once considered a prudent exercise of federal authority becomes, in the hands of a political opponent, a symbol of tyranny.

This kind of narrative manipulation is intellectually dishonest and socially corrosive. It feeds division by convincing citizens that lawful government actions are acts of oppression - so long as they are carried out by the “wrong” party.

The Real Danger: Undermining Civilian Control of the Military

Ironically, Obama’s own rhetoric contradicts his stated concern about “military politicization.” Civilian control of the military—the very principle he cites—is preserved only when the military and the presidency are respected as apolitical institutions. By accusing Trump of “corrupting” the military for carrying out its constitutionally authorized duties, Obama himself is engaging in the politicization he claims to condemn.

Every time a former president frames a lawful deployment as “fascist” or “corrupt,” he is conditioning the public to see legitimate executive action as inherently suspect. That weakens civilian control by eroding confidence in leadership decisions and fostering distrust between military personnel, the president, and the people they serve.

If Obama were truly concerned about the integrity of civilian oversight, he would have chosen discretion over provocation.

Misinformation as a Political Weapon

The Occupy Democrats post amplifies Obama’s claims without context, presenting opinion as fact and rhetoric as evidence. Phrases like “convicted felon president” and “most corrupt in history” are not journalism - they are political propaganda designed to inflame emotion, not inform reason.

The actual record shows that Trump’s use of the National Guard during domestic unrest was coordinated through proper legal channels, often at the request of state or local officials who had lost control of violent situations. In some cases, deployments were explicitly limited to protecting federal buildings or assisting overwhelmed law enforcement - not “terrorizing” political opponents.

By labeling these efforts “authoritarian,” partisan outlets like Occupy Democrats distort both the facts and the law. They intentionally conflate riot control with civilian oppression, erasing the difference between protecting order and abusing power.

This misrepresentation is what truly threatens democracy: when the media manipulates words like “fascism” and “corruption” to describe constitutional governance, it strips those terms of meaning - and in doing so, blinds the public to actual authoritarian behavior when it appears.

Leadership Requires Restraint

There is a reason why respected statesmen like George Washington, Ronald Reagan, and even Bill Clinton understood the value of silence after leaving office. Their restraint strengthened the republic by showing that the presidency transcends the person who holds it.

When former presidents become active participants in partisan attacks, they erode that unity and invite chaos. Obama’s comments are not the measured reflections of a statesman - they are the partisan jabs of a politician unwilling to leave the stage.

True leadership is not about dominating the conversation - it is about knowing when to step back so that the next leader can govern without interference.

Words Matter, Especially from Former Presidents

Barack Obama’s attack on Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard is not just a mischaracterization - it is a breach of political decorum and constitutional understanding. By framing lawful executive authority as “corrupt,” Obama contributes to a dangerous erosion of trust in government institutions and fuels the partisan hostility dividing the nation.

If we are to preserve democracy, we must reject the weaponization of rhetoric and the redefinition of legitimacy based on political allegiance. Presidents, past or present, must be held to the same constitutional standards - not to the shifting emotions of public opinion or partisan outrage.

Share on Facebook!