PEAK TO PEAK - On Tuesday, September 30, 2025, “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth and President Donald J. Trump held a meeting of the U.S. Military’s top officers at the Quantico Marines base in Virginia, during which Hegseth laid out new standards to be implemented, and President Trump signaled a “War at Home.”

Hegseth, while televised on stage in front of a bright American flag, told the room full of stoic career military leaders that they were “done with that shit” in regard to perceived political correctness run rampant through the halls of military camps.

Particular standards were to be codified, some relating to appearance and physical fitness, as Hegseth stated there were to be “no more beardos” and no more “fat generals,” and that all recruits will be expected to meet higher, male-centered standards for physical fitness. 

In 2022, the physical fitness standards for the military, specifically the Army Combat Fitness Test, was changed in an effort to broaden recruitment for a fair and equitable military. However, there are no “male” or “female” standards—they are the same for all.

Military enlistment has declined from 800,000 in 1980 to just over 100,000 in 2020, with the total number of active-duty members down by 45,861 from 2022 to 2024. Though there was a slight increase of enlistment in 2024, the Department of Defense reported that 77% of young adults in the U.S. were deemed unqualified to serve due to “obesity, educational deficits, or criminal or drug abuse records.”

A 2024 study by the Office of People Analytics also highlights that 87% of Americans aged 16 to 21 stated that they would “probably not” or “definitely not” consider enrolling in the military. 

Permitting beards in military service through shaving waivers relates specifically to Black recruits, as the medical condition pseudofolliculitis—which causes extreme skin irritation when shaving—disproportionately affects Black males.

Such policies were first instituted as far back as the 1970s, with more recent exemptions being made for those soldiers who practice certain religions, such as Sikhs and Muslims.   

The messaging of the meeting coincided with the Department of Defense’s recent “transition” to the Department of War (a change that requires the approval of Congress, which it has not received) with the intention of strengthening the country’s ability to fight wars and to respond to threats both foreign and domestic. 

“The only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this: war fighting, preparing for war and preparing to win,” Hegseth said. “Not because we want war. But it’s because we love peace.

“It’s called peace through strength,” Hegseth explained to the room full of generals. “And as history teaches us, the only people who actually deserve peace are those who are willing to wage war to defend it.”

Democrats=unsafe?

“You know, the Democrats run most of the cities that are in bad shape,” President Trump said. “San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they're very unsafe places and we're going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too. It's a war from within.”

Trump was more blunt in his messaging, stating how he felt the US Military should be intentionally wielded and sent to “train” in US cities, which is evident in his recent orders to federalize the National Guard and deploy them to a number of cities deemed “dangerous” by Trump and his administration. 

The Trump administration’s current record on war appears to be directly antithetical to the campaign sound bite where Trump stated he will “end all wars.”

Though Trump has recently shifted his position on Russia and Ukraine, calling Russia a “paper tiger” and insinuating that Ukraine can “win” all of its territory back; and despite having presented a peace plan for the situation in Gaza, which has resulted in Palestinians and Israelis meeting for peace talks in Egypt, the President and his administration have continued to spotlight the narrative of a war at home. 

As federal agents are pressured to suit up for ICE and are stationed in Democratic-run cities across the country, and as cities are actively suing the government for deploying, or attempting to deploy, troops to their streets, the Trump administration authored an executive order, presented on September 22, which directly labeled ANTIFA a terrorist threat and a domestic terrorist organization. 

Domestic terrorism?

The order defines ANTIFA as being involved with “coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of Federal laws through armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violent assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement officers, and routine doxing of and other threats against political figures and activists.”

Another document, which was not so widely publicized, titled NSPM (National Security Presidential Memorandum) 7, provides more detail on what the Trump administration hopes to classify as terrorist activity.

“The NSPM requires the Attorney General to prosecute all Federal crimes related to organized political violence,” an official fact sheet from The White House reads.

“The Attorney General is also directed to issue guidance that ensures domestic terrorism priorities include politically motivated terrorist acts like organized doxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, and property crimes.

“The guidance will also identify behaviors, fact patterns, and recurrent motivations common to organizations and entities that coordinate these acts in order to stop political violence before it occurs.”

Behaviors that will be identified as domestic terrorism include: anti-police and anti-ICE sentiment and activities; the justification of murder “under the umbrella of anti-fascism and anti-American principles”; and anything that undermines “American values,” which include “free speech, citizenship, the rule of law, patriotic and familial devotion, and love of God.”

Presidential Memorandums or Directives such as NSPM 7 have been invoked before in the name of national or homeland security, most recently after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

At that time, the Bush Administration passed the PATRIOT and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Acts, among others, which resulted in the discriminatory treatment of Arab citizens, creating a 1600% increase in anti-Muslim sentiment in America, as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigations.  

The Trump Administration is considering invoking other emergency orders, including the Insurrection Act, in order to bypass federal judges, who, as of October 6, have blocked Trump’s attempt to deploy troops to Oregon, as a judge found that the reasons for deployment were “untethered to the facts.”

Where’s the terror?

As for why the Trump administration has targeted these particular cities, there appears to be certain political through-lines that connect them: being run by Democratic leaders, having “sanctuary city” policies in regard to immigrants, and having experienced “social unrest” by way of protests. 

Los Angeles, California is seen as a liberal mecca. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom have heavily criticized President Trump for his attack on their immigration policies. Los Angeles has a population that is 40% Latino, with 27% of their total population being born outside of the US. 

Though Washington DC was targeted by the Trump administration for being overrun by crime, data shows that crime rates were steadily dropping after a spike in homicides and violent crime in 2023. The number of homicides dropped by one-third from 2023 to 2024, and carjackings, robberies, and property crime dropped by half. 

43% of DC residents are Black, exceeding the white population by 6%. 

Trump is also attempting to deploy troops to Chicago, Illinois, and to Portland, Oregon. Chicago is a Democratic-run city with a population that is 31% white, 29% Hispanic, and 28% Black. Portland is predominantly Caucasian, with a 70% white population.

Both Chicago and Portland have been classified by the Trump administration as “war ravaged” by domestic terrorists. However, the crime data for both cities shows otherwise.

Political differences

Despite an alleged feud involving the President’s issues with Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Trump’s issues with Chicago can be traced to tweets decrying shootings in the city as far back as 2013.

In 2014, over criticisms regarding a large sign stating “TRUMP” that was hung on the Wabash Avenue Trump Tower, Trump wrote an op-ed for The Chicago Tribune stating that he should be thanked for distracting from the “negative news” the city was allegedly receiving. 

And in 2016, during Trump’s first campaign, he was forced to cancel a political rally at the University of Illinois Chicago Pavilion due to the event attracting a large number of anti-Trump protestors.    

As for why Portland is being targeted, a Congressional report by Christina Cauterucci, published in July of 2020, highlights how, at that time, Trump’s deployment of Department of Homeland Security forces to quell Black Lives Matter protests was seemingly due, in part, to Trump knowing the violent history of the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) and believing that they would fall in line and assist the militarized force. 

Oregon officials at that time fought the occupation by Trump’s forces and even barred the PPB from being able to coordinate with federal agents, eventually causing Trump to have to come to an agreement on withdrawal.    

In regard to Tennessee, Republican Governor Bill Lee openly invited Trump to deploy the National Guard to Memphis, despite objections by Democratic Mayor Paul Young.

Lee stated that he was “tired of crime holding the great city of Memphis back.” Local data indicates that there was a 20% drop in major property crime from 2023 to 2024, but only a 4.2% drop in major violent crimes, with the rate of aggravated assaults actually rising by 0.6%. 

The population of Memphis is 63% Black, 23% white, and 10% Latino.

The recent ICE raid of a Chicago apartment complex, and the behavior of ICE agents during protests, which humanitarian groups such as the American Immigration Council, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union, have labeled as excessive and abusive, appears to back up the theory by some political pundits that the Trump administration is attempting to antagonize those who they deem the “radical left” in order to justify and authorize federal occupation.

Insurrection Act next?

Just as the government shutdown can appear to be a play straight from Project 2025, the far-right extremist playbook created by The Heritage Foundation and authored, in part, by Trump loyalists Brendan Carr and Stephen Miller, such connections can also be made to the Trump administration’s perceived finger-pointing to the far-left regarding political violence, as Project 2025 directly calls for “invoking the Insurrection Act on Day One to quash protests.” 

Whether troops could ever be deployed, or threatened to be deployed, to Colorado, one should consider how Colorado leaders may trigger the President and draw his ire, especially regarding the state’s liberal policies on immigration and working with federal agents. Other areas that may offend the purveyors of Project 2025 pertain to Colorado’s approach to the use of public lands, and our liberal abortion laws.