From Simulation to Reality

I read two articles this morning that turned out to be about the same thing. And when I finished them, the question I could not shake was not about policy or law or strategy. It was simpler than that. I kept asking myself: how are these people making themselves believe this is the right path?

The first article, published in The Guardian, was written by Claire Finkelstein, who directs the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania. In October 2024, her center ran a tabletop exercise to explore what might happen if a president carried out a highly unpopular law enforcement operation in a major American city and local authorities resisted. In that simulation, the scenario was set in Philadelphia. The president attempted to federalize Pennsylvania’s National Guard. When the governor refused and the guard remained loyal to the state, the president deployed active duty troops. The exercise ended with armed conflict between state and federal forces on American soil.

Finkelstein wrote her Guardian piece because the simulation is no longer hypothetical. It is playing out in Minnesota right now. Federal agents have occupied Minneapolis by the thousands. Two citizens have been shot dead. The governor has mobilized the state National Guard. The president has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act. The Pentagon has placed 1,500 soldiers from the 11th Airborne Division on standby for possible deployment. The scenario that seemed like a worst case exercise fifteen months ago is now something we are watching on our phones.

The second article, published in The Atlantic by Tom Nichols, was about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth inserting himself into the Minnesota crisis in the most inflammatory way possible. Hours after federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37 year old ICU nurse with no criminal record, Hegseth posted on X that ICE agents are “SAVING the country,” called the people protesting in the streets “lunatics,” expressed “shame” on the leadership of Minnesota, and declared “ICE > MN.” Most ominously, Hegseth wrote: “Thank God for the patriots of @ICEgov — we have your back 100%.”

Video of the killing shows Pretti holding a phone, not a gun. Officers did not seem to realize he was armed until after they pinned him to the ground, and the footage does not show them opening fire until after they had taken his pistol away. Minneapolis police confirmed Pretti had a legal firearms permit and that open carry is legal in Minnesota for permit holders. He was shot multiple times while lying face down on the pavement. None of that mattered to Hegseth, who was already treating Minnesota’s elected leaders as enemies and promising that the military would protect the agents who killed an American citizen before anyone had investigated what happened.

When I put these two articles together, I understood the trajectory we are on. The simulation showed where this ends. Hegseth’s behavior shows someone eager to get us there. But what I cannot understand is all the people who are going along with it.

Start with Congress. Where are the Republicans? A Secretary of Defense just publicly committed the United States military to “have the backs” of federal agents who shot a citizen lying in the street. He treated the elected governor and mayor of an American state as enemies of the nation. He declared that a federal agency is somehow superior to or sovereign over a state. This is not normal. This is not conservative. This is not consistent with any principle the Republican Party has ever claimed to hold about federalism, limited government, or the separation of military and civilian authority. And yet the silence from the GOP side of the Capitol is deafening.

These are the same people who spent years talking about the Constitution, about states’ rights, about the dangers of federal overreach. Now a cabinet secretary is treating Minnesota like occupied territory, and they have nothing to say. Are they afraid? Complicit? Do they actually believe that sending the 11th Airborne Division into Minneapolis to back up immigration agents is what the Founders had in mind? I genuinely want to know what story they are telling themselves. What is the principle that makes this okay? What is the limiting factor that they think will prevent this from going further? Or have they simply decided that loyalty to Trump matters more than anything they used to claim to believe?

Then there are the generals. Somewhere in the chain of command, there are officers who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath does not include a clause about obeying the president when he decides to treat American citizens as the enemy. It does not authorize the use of military force against protesters in Minneapolis because the Secretary of Defense thinks ICE needs backup. The duty to refuse unlawful orders is not a technicality. It is a foundational principle of military ethics that dates back to Nuremberg. The whole point is that following orders is not a defense when the orders themselves are wrong.

So who are the generals and colonels and majors who are preparing to send soldiers into an American city to confront American citizens? What are they telling themselves? That this is somehow different? That the lawyers have signed off? That they will follow orders now and sort out the ethics later? I grew up believing that the American military was led by serious people who understood their obligations to the country and the Constitution. Maybe that was naive. But I cannot look at 1,500 soldiers waiting in Alaska for orders to deploy to Minneapolis and not wonder who gave those orders and how they justified it to themselves.

And then there are the supporters. The people who watch video of a man being shot while lying face down and decide that he must have deserved it. The people who hear Hegseth call protesters “lunatics” and cheer. The people who think “ICE > MN” is a reasonable thing for a Secretary of Defense to say about an American state. What is happening in their heads? How do you convince yourself that this is patriotism? How do you look at federal agents going door to door in immigrant neighborhoods, at schools closing out of fear, at two dead citizens in seventeen days, and conclude that this is making America great? Your mother is ashamed of you…

I understand political tribalism. I understand that people will forgive a lot from their own side. But there has to be a line somewhere. There has to be a point where you look at what is happening and say, this is not what I signed up for. This is not who we are supposed to be. Sending the military into American cities to crush dissent is what other countries do, countries we used to criticize, countries we used to distinguish ourselves from. When did that become something to celebrate?

The participants in Finkelstein’s tabletop exercise understood how these situations spiral. Once you put state forces and federal forces in the same streets, the risk of catastrophic miscalculation rises sharply. A single shot fired in confusion or fear can trigger an escalation that no one intended and no one can control. The way to prevent that outcome is not to hope everyone keeps their heads in the moment. The way to prevent it is to never let the situation reach that point.

Hegseth is doing the opposite. He is pouring fuel on a fire that is already burning. He is telling federal agents that the military has their backs against the state of Minnesota. He is treating American protesters as enemies. He is promising protection before anyone has investigated what actually happened. A Secretary of Defense with any sense of his responsibilities would be working to de escalate, to keep the military far away from this mess, to remind everyone that the armed forces do not take sides in disputes between federal agencies and state governments. Instead, Hegseth is signaling that he wants in.

And almost no one with the power to stop this is saying a word.

That is what I cannot get past. Not the cruelty of the administration, which is by now predictable. Not the recklessness of Hegseth, who has never shown any evidence of understanding the weight of his office. What staggers me is the silence of everyone else. The Republicans in Congress who could hold hearings, demand answers, assert the powers of their branch. The military officers who could resign rather than prepare for an operation they know is wrong. The millions of Americans who voted for this and are watching it unfold and somehow still believe they are on the right side.

The simulation showed us where this path leads. The Secretary of Defense is racing down that path as fast as he can. And the people who could slow him down, stop him, or even just object, are standing by and watching.

I do not know what story they are telling themselves. But whatever it is, I hope they remember it clearly. Because someday they will have to explain how they let this happen.