Fresh Air - National Guard Deployment In American Cities

Episode Date: October 9, 2025

President Trump has deployed National Guard troops to Portland, Chicago and D.C., and while Democrat-led states are fighting back, some Republican-led states are welcoming the troops -- even requesting them. Tonya Mosley talks with Atlantic national security staff writer Nancy Youssef about these deployments and the tensions building inside the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Hegseth has told military leaders the “old military is over." "The decisions that are being made now will reshape the military for many years," Youssef says. Film critic Justin Chang reviews Luca Guadagnino's After the Hunt. Follow Fresh Air on instagram @nprfreshair, and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for gems from the Fresh Air archive, staff recommendations, and a peek behind the scenes. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

In the U.S., national security news can feel far away from daily life. Distant wars, murky conflicts, diplomacy behind closed doors on our new show, Sources and Methods. NPR reporters on the ground bring you stories of real people, helping you understand why distant events matter here at home. Listen to sources and methods on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Fresh Air. I'm Tanya Mosley. To put military troops in America. cities is a threat to our democracy. If you think about the speech that the president gave to the hundreds of generals that were gathered a week or so ago to talk about training our

troops in the cities of America, we're not at war with ourselves here. There is not an insurrection or a rebellion, not only in Portland or Chicago or other places. Look, there are challenges. There's lawful demonstrations. Local law enforcement is handling the situation. And I think this is an overreaction to the situation. And it's just not true. Facts should matter. That was Oregon Governor Tina Kotech on NPR, reacting to President Donald Trump's order to deploy National Guard troops into several U.S. cities. Her words capture the anxiety and disbelief reverberating through many city halls and state houses and even inside the Pentagon.

In Portland, a federal judge, his temporary. block the guards' arrival. In Chicago, city and state leaders are suing to stop similar deployments. But that resistance is falling largely along partisan lines. While Democratic governors oppose the deployments, some Republican governors are welcoming them. Louisiana governor, Jeff Laundrie, requested up to 1,000 troops for New Orleans and Shreveport in Baton Rouge, citing high crime rates. In at least six Republican-led states, including West Virginia, South Carolina, Carolina and Ohio have sent hundreds of guard troops to Washington, D.C. at Trump's request. But the deployment orders are just one part of a larger shift happening inside of the military itself.

Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth delivered what's being described as one of the most politicized military addresses in modern history. Speaking to about 800 generals, admirals, and senior leaders, Hexeth called for reshaping the armed forces around a warrior ethos, and suggested the military must be ready for domestic urban operations. He rejected what he called woke weakness. My guest today is Nancy Yusuf, a national security staff writer with the Atlantic. She's been reporting on the reaction inside the Pentagon to Hexeth's speech and what this moment means for civil military relations in America. Prior to joining the Atlantic, Yusuf covered the military and the Arab world for the wall. Street Journal. Our interview was recorded yesterday. Nancy Yusuf, welcome to fresh air.

Thank you so much for having me. Nancy, President Trump has been deploying National Guard troops from states like Texas to cities like Chicago and Portland and others, and these deployments, as we know, have faced legal challenges from federal judges and lawsuits from state officials. Can you bring us up to speed on where this stands and help us understand what's happening? Sure. I should begin by describing sort of what the National Guard does and under what authority they can deploy. Most National Guard answer to governors and their job is to respond to demands within that state under the authority of the governor. So you might think of it as or seen it as National Guardsmen responding to natural disasters, hurricanes, tornadoes, other

natural disasters within their state. They might get support from nearby states. But all of those guardsmen are under the deployment of a governor. And then there are instances where the National Guard can be federalized, which means that they are under the authority of the federal government. The most sort of common one that we would think of is when they are deployed overseas because they are needed to sort of supplement the active duty component. We saw this both in Iraq and Afghanistan. What the president is doing is he is federalizing troops in these cities over the objections of the governor. And so by doing so, he is limited in terms of where he can deploy them because the governor hasn't signed off on them. So they're going to federal buildings because

that's under the federal government and they are escorting ICE agents around on some missions. I want to ask you some questions about some of the rhetoric from the president's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, because I think we can't overstate some of the language being used. He is describing what's happening in Portland as a terrorist assault, an organized terrorist attack on federal officers. As you have said, many local leaders and governors are saying that's just not true. In Oregon, the Oregon governor actually says the protests are so small, they just span a city block. Tell me first what Role Miller is playing here and what his rhetoric might tell us about where this could be heading. Well, based on my reporting, I think he is someone who's a proponent of

using military force in cities, that he sees it as a necessity, and that he believes that the president has wide authorities to deploy them into American cities because the threat, as he sees them as domestic terrorists, and he's described it widely what constitutes a threat to the United States. What's interesting is not only the language that you pointed out, but in a tweet over the weekend, he said that the Portland local authorities are unwilling to protect these areas. And the reason that's important is the use of the Insurrection Act can happen when local governments are unable or unwilling to protect streets. And so I think that raised a lot of eyebrows here in Washington was he laying the groundwork for potentially

invoking the Insurrection Act to an American city, to Portland or somewhere else. And the president made reference to it earlier this weekend, said he could invoke it but didn't have an immediate plans to, but certainly suggested that that was something he would consider doing. I actually want us to hear his words directly. So this was President Trump, when asked about the Insurrection Act during White House press briefing on Monday. Let's listen. Well, I do it if it was necessary. So far it hasn't been necessary. But we have an insurrection act for a reason. If I had to enact it, I'd do that. If people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up. Sure, I do that. I mean, I want to make sure that people

aren't killed. We have to make sure that our cities are safe. And it's turning out, and we started with D.C. It's been so successful. Think of it. People wouldn't go to restaurants. The restaurants were closing. We'll lose in a lot of restaurants, as you all know. And now restaurants are opening and they're thriving. That was President Trump being asked about the Insurrection Act. Walk us through the legal chess game in this instance, because we know that the deployment of National Guardsmen up to this point, using that other statute that you brought up, is being contested in the courts. How likely could something like invoking the Insurrection Act be a reality? I think, frankly, it could be because the legal language around it gives wide discretion to

the president. The Insurrection Act gives the president the power to federalize National Guard troops anywhere in the United States to restore order during an insurrection, during some catastrophic major breach of security in the country. And that hasn't happened yet, but there has been increased talk about it. The president has described what's happening in Portland, for example, as an insurrection, but hasn't provided evidence to support that. And in fact, the local government says that they are able to to maintain order that they haven't made any arrest and that they don't need federal troops at federal buildings, and they certainly don't need the use of the Insurrection Act in their city.

The reason I think there's a lot of concern about the use of the Insurrection Act is that has been used for extraordinary circumstances. It's been used less than 30 times across the history of this country. I think the time that we think about it that most listeners might be familiar with was in 1992 after the riots in response to the Rodney King trial. And so that was an extraordinary circumstance. And I think the concern is that if this is allowed to proceed, that it will lower the threshold for when the federal government can put military troops on American streets, that it's no longer for extraordinary circumstances, but ones that fall far short of that. Have you heard anything about how these deployments are sitting with the national

guardsmen themselves. It's funny. When you talk to them, there's a whole wide spectrum of responses. You'll have people who are really frustrated, for example, in Washington, because some missed the first days of school, their children during this deployment. Some of them are feeling the stress in their own homes, in their own communities, and their own businesses. And then there are some who are delighted to be a part of this mission that they see themselves as defending the nation's capital, that they're carrying up the president's mission. We did a story with National Guardsmen. And one, One thing that jumped out to me is that when we asked them, what is your mission?

We're the president's mission, which was an interesting use of language to me because some might see themselves as really carrying out the vision of the use of National Guard as the president wants it. But that's different from a guard that often up until that point really largely define themselves as protecting their communities or protecting the nation. So, Nancy, all of this, the deployments, the legal battles, the rhetoric about the enemies within, it all connects back to Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth's speech last week, where he told military leaders about 800 generals and admirals from around the world on short notice and basically told them that the old military is over. And I want us to listen to just a bit of it. This administration has done a great deal from day one. To remove the social justice politically correct and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department. To rip out the politics.

No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction, or gender delusions. No more debris. As I've said before, and we'll say again, we are done with that shit. I've made it my mission to uproot the obvious distractions that made us less capable and less lethal. That said, the War Department requires the next step. Underneath the woke garbage is a deeper problem and a more important problem that we are fixing and fixing fast.

Common sense is back at the White House. So making the necessary changes is actually pretty straightforward. That was Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth on September 30th at a Marine Corps base in Virginia. Nancy, beyond what he actually said, what we just heard, what made that gathering itself so unusual? A couple things. I've been covering the Pentagon and I was in Iraq and Afghanistan before that. So since 2003, and I've never seen a gathering of all generals and admirals. I mean, logistically, it's such a challenge.

There were admirals who had to be pulled off of ships and then flown from ship to shore and then from shore to Washington for this gathering. And they arrived not knowing what the purpose of the meeting was. Some were asking themselves privately, what would I do if I was asked to take a loyalty test, for example? Some were telling their staffs what they would or wouldn't do in those situations. Some were trying to protect their staffs. And so usually you would not gather that many because, and this sounds flip, they're busy. These guys are busy and they're busy on important missions and they're supporting troops on the front line.

And then to not know why sort of created, I think, a climate of fear in the run-up to it. And then during the conversation, you know, usually secretaries of defense in the past have focused on sort of thinking about fighting the, the next war, the future of the military 10 or 20 years. And what they heard from Hegeseth was a lot of focus on things that usually don't come from a secretary in terms of the priorities, fitness and social programs. Usually those are things that are reserved for lower ranking officers. It was, to me, a speech that was sort of an extension of his book in which he argues a lot of these same points. And those views and that book was based on his experience as a National Guard, major. And so I think a lot of those in the room heard a message that this Secretary of Defense

wants a very different force. I think if you're a woman, and we heard from women who kind of kept hearing if there's going to be same standards across, then they want to be judged for what they do. You know, he said repeatedly, we have to sort of suggest that there have been lower standards for women. There haven't been. And I think the message that the generals heard, heard more than anything was, I mean, frankly, a lot of them joke that they kind of got lectured by a major, but they didn't hear something that sort of was unifying, but really looking for ways to narrow the definition of what makes an exceptional soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine. Up until this point, I think the military really celebrated exceptional Americans of

different backgrounds, different races, different genders, and the secretary really kind of narrowed that definition to a certain kind of troop, a certain kind of American with certain views. And I think that was the message that came across more than any other. That's really interesting about how they said they felt like they were being lectured by a major because, of course, in the military hierarchy is super important. Many of those people in the room had more experience than Hexeth. What are you hearing from both rank and file service members afterwards when they were able to talk about and parse out what was the takeaway for them to go back to their bases and places? Like, what did they interpret as the directive?

The thing I hear more than anything is sort of fear about what they can say, what they can do, what they cannot do. For some in the room, I think they wondered if they were being sort of personally targeted in some way, that they wouldn't be welcome in a military that they spent decades serving. Because many of them are those identities. They are women. They are people of color. And they got there because of their qualifications, this assumption that there was some sort of favor done to let them in. You know, in many ways, the military, and I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it is a meritocracy.

It is harder for women and people of color to advance in this military. I don't want to oversimplify it, but there's a lot of meritocracy in that system as well. And there has been efforts over time to make sure that that is more in place, not less so. I did a story a few years ago with a general who was trying to interview future colonels and put them behind a screen so that those evaluating them couldn't see them, that they could remove identifying factors so that you could really judge rising colonels based on their merits. So there have been efforts to get at this. The other interesting thing that happened is there was such an awareness about them. message they were sending with their response. If you'll remember in June, President Trump came to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and there were lower ranking troops there who were cheering when he

was mocking President Biden, who were buying Trump merchandise that was being sold nearby and putting it on their uniforms. And there was such an awareness that how they reacted was going to send a message to the force and to the country that they see themselves as an apolitical force and that they are there to defend the nation and that they're there not to only defend certain causes or certain parts of the country or against certain threats. And so there was a real awareness about reactions, which is why you didn't see any. I think they were trying to send a message to the country, but also to lower ranking troops that this is the expectation in terms of how you respond, that we remain America's military and we are here to defend the nation. I mean, just thinking about some of those initiatives that really have been part of the fabric of the military for several decades, if you're a woman in the military right now or LGBTQ, a person of color, where do you turn at this moment if you face discrimination? Have the headwinds turned pretty quickly? What are you hearing?

I'm hearing people really consider whether they can stay. also what to tell people coming up behind them, whether they should encourage them to stay in. Because they don't know. I mean, in that speech, the secretary also said, you know, people are accused of bullying too often and that we need to reassess that sort of standard, that we're not going to ruin people's careers over minor infractions, but then was quite vague about what a minor infraction was, which for some people, these were a lot of the checks that were put in place to make sure that there's an equal opportunity, that to make sure that. that people are protected, that if they, for example, complain of sexual harassment, that it won't be career-ending for the person who was harassed, but for the person who did the harassment. And so what I hear from a lot of people, the question about whether they can continue to serve. Now, having said that, there are people both in that room and certainly across the force who saw that message as important and necessary, that too much time had been taken,

focused on social issues and not enough on war fighting, that the military needs to get back to a standard, that it needs to be more focused on physical fitness. So for some people, it resonated, that the force had gotten too off of mark of its priorities. For others, though, I think particularly for women and minorities that I've spoken to, there's a feeling that maybe I'm not welcome here anymore. And I've had service members tell me that directly, really asking themselves, is there a place for me in this military going forward? You know, the timing is striking because I was also reading that there has been, over the last few years, a steady uptick of particularly black recruitment and Hispanic recruitment under the military's DEI policies. Is there kind of the bet that Hexeth can attract more recruits from a conservative base that might be turned off by diversity?

And does that math actually work when there has been a struggle in the past to find qualified people to enlist? I think it depends on what kind of military you see in the future. If you see a smaller military, if you see one that doesn't need to represent sort of in terms of its physical composition, the American population, it doesn't fully now, right? The middle of the country is where the majority of the service members come from. But if that's the goal, then this becomes harder. If the goal is a smaller military, one that sort of is more homogenous in terms of. terms of values, where there are more focus on internal threats, where we don't have as many troops in Europe or in the Middle East, where we're depending more on drones and other technology

and less so on having a physical foot presence in those areas, then it might work. And I think that's the ultimate question. What kind of military do they see? They're hinting at it, but they haven't spelled it out. Let's take a short break. Our guest today is Nancy Yusuf. National Security Writer for the Atlantic. We'll be right back after a short break. I'm Tanya Moosley, and this is fresh air. You know, something that Hexeth referred to, he referred to the time period of the 1990s,

almost as some sort of golden age. And there's a lot of change that was happening back then. But I also wanted to note that women first flew combat missions in the 90s, but then there was also don't ask, don't tell as a policy. So what version of the 90s does he want to return to? He didn't say in the speech. He said, well, just pick a year. He mentioned General Schwarzkopf as a kind of general that the U.S. military should be like.

I think he sort of suggested because that was the last sort of major military win and referring to the Gulf War. I mean, the thing is, though, you know, one year after that period, was the tailhook scandal in which 70-plus women and seven men were sexually harassed and assaulted at a convention. Generals had tried to complain about this conference and the behavior that happened there in the years prior and were ignored. A lot of the reforms that we have in place now were a product of the mistakes of that period. Moreover, the idea that the 1990 war was sort of the metric, you could argue that the U.S. had to didn't finish that war. And one of the reasons that you saw the U.S. intervention ramp up afterwards in the Middle East was because of sort of the consequences of that war.

And so he seemed to suggest that it was a time when you had fewer women, you had fewer restrictions, but just scratched below the surface, it was not a time that everybody could serve and serve in an environment that they felt that was safe and fair to them. Nancy Hexeth isn't just changing who's in the military and what they do. He's also controlling who military leaders can even talk to. So you reported on this back in July. Tell us what happened with the Aspen Security Forum. And it might actually help for you to go over exactly what is the Aspen Security Forum. And then tell us what happened. Sure.

This is part of a broader restriction that the secretary's put. on generals, admiral civilians to talk about what the Pentagon is doing. So military officers go to maybe hundreds of conferences across the services a year. And one reason they go is to show the American public who they are, to engage, to have conversations, to hear ideas from different places. And there's one that's held every year, every summer in July called the Aspen Security Institute. And it's sort of one of the bigger ones where you see a lot of four stars. going. They meet with top policymakers, and it's really an opportunity to have sort of a broad discussion about national security. Immediately before that conference was supposed to begin,

the secretary issued guidance that essentially said that those generals and admirals couldn't go, that there would be restrictions on what they could go to going forward, and that they needed approval from the department before they go to such conferences in the future. And so you had people in some cases getting ready to board flights who had to cancel. their plans because they were not allowed to go to something that has been really a staple in terms of formats where there can be discussions outside of the Pentagon about national security. And I've gone to several of them. And I do find that often when you're in Washington, you know, you end up looking at things from where you sit and that there are so many opportunities

at those kinds of forums to just hear different thoughts or get a sense in terms of how national security policy is being received outside of the building. And so I think that's why so many agree to do it. And so now you're seeing far fewer generals and admirals going to such events and even lower ranking for that matter. And that those that they are allowed to go to tend to be organizations that are perceived to have a political affiliation or agreement with the administration, which hadn't happened historically in the past. Can you briefly just go a little bit deeper? on the value of these events for these military officials, because I just want to get a clear understanding of what could potentially happen when you cut the Pentagon off from those types

of events? Well, you know, only a small, small percentage of Americans even serve in the military. So even though it gets nearly a trillion now of taxpayer dollars, I think a lot of people don't understand the military. They haven't been exposed to it in a way that gives them a real understanding of what the military does. And sometimes these formats offer opportunities for the military to introduce themselves to the American public. In addition, so many of these events that they go to, there are people who are doing work that might on the face of it not seem relevant or useful to the

military, but they might introduce the military new technologies where interest can overlap, where they can sort of advance a technology because they're seeing it use somewhere else. Sometimes it's meeting officers from other countries and seeing how they're tackling a threat versus how the United States is tackling a threat. Sometimes it's just the face-to-face meeting to get to know somebody so that in the future, if there is some sort of conflict and you need to be able to get somebody on the phone, you've had that face-to-face interaction that can be the difference between the right and the wrong response to a crisis. And so it's just an opportunity for real discourse that their jobs usually don't allow. They're often so immersed in the problem set in front of them and around other military officers, around like-minded thinkers, that the opportunity to get outside of that and think outside of that and how each side can bring lessons and experiences to the other has, from the cheap seats where I sit has been beneficial. Well, let's talk a little bit about the cheap seats where you sit. Your job. In September, Hexeth told Pentagon reporters,

sign this pledge, don't report anything, even unclassified information without our approval. Now the New York Times is reporting that those rules have been relaxed. What's actually going on? And how has your job been impacted? I don't see the rules as loosened. Well, let me begin by saying what the rules were. So we've had a wonderful opportunity as Pentagon reporters and that we could walk most of the building. Now, that doesn't mean we could go into secure rooms or go into areas.

There are many, many, many, secure areas, most of them. But you could walk and hear and get a sense of how headquarters, the mood of headquarters as it was contemplating these decisions. And so it's been an enormous resource for us. Now, having said that it's also been to the great benefit of the Pentagon because the Pentagon had never let us in as a favor to us. but they understood that if you're going to ask for such an enormous amount of money and for American families to volunteer their sons and daughters to serve,

that they had an obligation and actually a benefit in showing the American public what was being done with that money, the decision makers behind it. It's why they did in-beds, for example, when they allowed us the experience of being in the Humvee with them and experiencing what we as a country were asking them to do. And so this has been the case. since the Pentagon opened in 1943, through many wars, through many tense moments between the press and the Department of Defense. In May, we were told we could only walk through certain hallways. And now they said new rules that in order for us to continue to be in the building, they have to sign off on what we ask, not publish, ask that the mere solicitation of information unapproved could lead to us being kicked out of the building. So for example, if I was going to say, yes. How does that work?

I don't know. Let's say I ask someone, where is the USS Truman operating in? What ocean? That's a violation because it wasn't sort of through the channels as they spell them out. And I should note this wasn't brought about because there was some egregious security violation. There was some breach that happened. There was some threat to national security that demanded some change. This has been part of a consistent message from the secretary that he doesn't want the military engaging with mainstream press, for lack of a better term, that he wants to engage directly on social media and only speak to those who sort of are like-minded in their views of his conduct.

He doesn't do regular interviews. Up until this point, and certainly during the wars, we had secretaries and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who regularly came to the brief room. answered questions. That doesn't happen anymore. There aren't regular briefings. It's so hard to get basic information now. And once we're out of the building, if that's what happens, it'll be even harder. And I worry about the chilling effect because the messaging is, you general officers, you leadership, don't have to engage. You don't owe anybody answers to some consequential decisions that you're making. You're worried about the chilling effect, but I mean, isn't this also a violation of the First Amendment? Doesn't this run into First Amendment problems? So here's what the Pentagon

would say. You can keep reporting. You just can't do it from the building. You just can't have access to the building. So therefore, we're not violating your First Amendment. Right. Now, does that go with the spirit of the First Amendment? The spirit of this country? I would argue, no, that we have encouraged a robust conversation about policies and demanded answers of the leaders making them. So that's the the way that they're arguing in terms of the First Amendment right because they have the discretion over who comes into the building. But it's not clear whether we can still go to any military installation. And does it create sort of two tiers, those who agree and those who don't? Let's take a short break. If you're just joining us, we're talking with Nancy Yusuf,

National Security Staff writer for the Atlantic. We'll be right back after a short break. This is fresh air. Nancy, I want to talk just a little bit about how the military is now operating outside of the country. There was this incident that happened back in September. In the Caribbean, Trump announced the U.S. Navy struck a boat from Venezuela, killing 11 people who were aboard that boat. There have been more strikes since then. I think there are more than 20 people who have died. What is the latest that you know about that situation?

So it's a great question because it is an unprecedented use of military force against drug traffickers. So the administrationist said that they want to use the military to combat drug trafficking and that they have named some narco-trafficking groups as foreign terrorist organizations. When they describe those on these boats, they use language that we used to reserve for al-Qaeda and ISIS, calling them combatants. Unlawful combatants, yes. That's right, which we hadn't, you know, you think of that more for groups like al-Qaeda, and that they need to strike these boats to stop the flow of drugs into the United States.

The problem is we don't actually know, nor have they told us in any detail who's on these boats. Why striking these boats in particular combats that problem. The president has described fentanyl is the drug that he wants to stop from entering the United States. Well, fentanyl doesn't come from Venezuela. There are countries that are trafficking more drugs than Venezuela by a lot. Venezuela is more for transiting drugs, but Colombia, Mexico, if we're going after a drug problem, it would seem like those are the countries one would target more. And it's not clear how hitting these boats, even if they have drugs on them,

has an enduring impact on drug trafficking in the United States, nor is the administration described it. Secretary Hegeseth has put out in social media, this is protecting the American people. But I'm not sure that it's clear how, if this is truly about going after drugs and using the military for something that had been reserved for law enforcement and that you would bring in the Coast Guard in a law enforcement capacity as part of that, if we're going to turn that now into a military mission, it's not clear why now, why these targets, what the in-state looks like, and whether it is legal to, to go after drug traffickers because the foreign terrorist designation in and of itself doesn't legally justify it. Again, we haven't gotten any clarity from the administration earlier this week. Pam Bondi was on Capitol Hill and asked about the legal justification and said she wouldn't answer it.

We've heard from the administration that this is a new, better use of the U.S. military that we're going to focus on threats from the Western Hemisphere, that this is a threat to the United States. But I don't know that there's been a clear line drawn between these specific strikes and that threat. The other interesting thing to me is, you know, this idea of going after non-state actors, this has faced legal questions on them before. With Al Qaeda, the courts had some questions at the beginning about it and said because they are seeking to destroy the United States, they can be considered a threat that could be dealt with militarily. These drug traffickers have not said that their aim is not to destroy the United States. Their aim is

profit. And so it's not clear to me legally how these strikes are being justified. They are because they're still happening. But we haven't heard more of an explanation. What we have heard the administration say is that more of these strikes are coming. You're actually, you've been doing some reporting on this. What are some things that you're looking at and watching for? So what's interesting to me is why the administration has chosen this to use U.S. military force on. I mean, these are the most aggressive strikes happening by the U.S. military from anywhere that I can say. I mean, we've had strikes against Iran and against the Houthis in Yemen, but right now this is the most aggressive military campaign. And I think there's a Venn diagram of sort

of interest happening where you have people like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has been a long advocate of opposition in Venezuela who want to see the Maduro government fall. It's an illegitimate government by the United States standards, state in power, even after election deemed otherwise. There are people like Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance, who I think see this as a way to project power. They see it as a form of deterrence against drug traffickers that even if they're not the sort of ones that are posing the biggest threat, that the hope is that drug trafficking will see this and take from it that they shouldn't be sending drugs into the United States.

And then there's a president himself who has indicated that he wants to use the U.S. military in different ways, who sees these strikes as a way to sort of have an influence on the world stage. And it's hard to push back, I think, for some, because the administration will say you're defending drug traffickers. So the sort of questions around these strikes, I think, are harder for some who oppose them to make. Nancy, you've covered the Pentagon for decades. How would you characterize this moment? I think it's a potential inflection point in terms of the use of U.S. military force, what we constitute as a threat, how big we want the military to be, what we want it to look like. The decisions that are being made now will reshape the military for many years.

It takes years to kind of train an officer to build an ethos within the force. And like, the changes can happen very quickly. But the consequences of them will take years to play out. And I think we're at this point where there's a real question about what is the U.S. military here for now? What kinds of threats do we consider a priority? What is our relationship with our allies? What can they count on us for? There's a lot of change is happening.

And to be clear, there are some people who welcome those changes. But it is an important inflection point for a military that has really projected itself as the leading defenders of the rule-based order and a certain moral view on how foreign policy should be conducted. Nancy Yusuf, thank you so much. Thank you. Nancy Yusuf, National Security Corresponded for the Atlantic. Coming up, film critic Justin Chang, reviews

Luca Guadino's new film After the Hunt, starring Julia Roberts and Iyo Adebri. This is fresh air. In the new drama After the Hunt, Julia Roberts plays a Yale philosophy professor whose life unravels after one of her colleagues is accused of sexually assaulting a student. The movie also features Andrew Garfield and Io Adepri, and was directed by Luca Guadonino, known for movies like challengers, and call me by your name. name. After The Hunt opens in theaters this week, and our film critic Justin Chang has this review. There's a brief moment in the high-toned academic pot boiler after the hunt when Julia Roberts lets out her signature laugh, that glorious, full-throated cackle that harks back at least to pretty woman. It's wonderful to hear it again, especially for those of us who've longed to see more of Roberts on screen lately. After the Hunt, from the Italian director Luka Guadonino isn't a great movie, but Roberts is undeniably great in it. This is her most

commanding work since her Oscar-winning turn in Aaron Brockovich 25 years ago. Here, though, Roberts is no crusader for justice. She's a woman defined by emotional guardedness and moral ambivalence. She plays Alma Imhoff, a philosophy professor at Yale. Alma is brilliant, respected, and more than a little aloof. But she does have her favorites, including a prized PhD student, Maggie, played by I.O. Edibiri from The Bear. Alma is also close friends with a younger male professor, Hank,

played by Andrew Garfield. Early in the movie, which is set in the fall of 2019, Alma throws a dinner party with her psychoanalyst husband, Frederick, a wickedly observant Michael Stoolbarg. Hank and Maggie are both given. guests, and the conversation turns to Maggie's dissertation, which is supposedly brilliant. But before long, Hank, who's clearly had too much to drink, begins ribbing Maggie and other gens ears like her.

Are you so tight? All your generation, everyone in your generation, you're so tight. Perfect, exemplar. You're not scared of saying the wrong thing or offending someone. When did it offending someone become the preeminent? The cardinal sin. I mean, I don't have a date exactly, but maybe it's around the same time your generation started making sweeping generalizations about ours.

The screenwriter, Nora Garrett, writes juicy, florid dialogue that plays like a knowing Hollywood parody of academia speak. But beneath all the party chatter, there's an undercurrent of hostility, a sense that everyone here has something to hide. That includes Alma, who's concealing some dark. dark secrets from decades earlier, which the film keeps alluding to, and which threatened to resurface. And then the next evening, Alma receives some shocking news from Maggie. After the party, she says, Hank walked her home and then sexually assaulted her. Maggie plans to report the

assault and ask for Alma's help. But Alma isn't sure she believes Maggie. Frankly, we're not sure if we believe her either. The script has already clued us in to Maggie's calculating streak, which Edibiri's wobbly performance seems to overemphasize. But does that mean that Maggie is lying? Hank, for his part, denies the accusation, though as we see in a later scene, he's more than capable of physical aggression. Garfield, often cast for his likability, seems to relish the role of a And so Maggie and Hank wage a tug of war for Alma's support, complicated by questions about race, gender, sexuality, and generational privilege. The characters openly dissect the optics of the situation, wondering if Maggie, a queer black woman, deserves the benefit of the doubt

in an arena dominated by straight white men. There's also some sniping about the fact that Maggie's rich, and that her parents are major donors to Yale. Through it all, Roberts maintains a superb poker face, only hinting at Alma's inner conflicts, and also those pesky secrets. But at a certain point, she and Maggie have an on-campus confrontation, and their underlying tensions spill out into the open. I don't feel comfortable having this conversation with you anymore. Not everything is supposed to make you comfortable, Maggie.

Not everything is supposed to be a lukewarm bath for you to sink into until you fall asleep and drown. Guadino clearly relishes such moments and stages them with terrific, finger-snapping flare. Indeed, it's the big soap opera gestures, the heated arguments, the rhetorical flourishes, the gorgeous interiors of Alma and Frederick's home, that seem to excite the director most, more so than any of the issues the film raises. Guadonino has always been good at tailoring his feverishly elegant style to a range of genres. He's directed horror films like Susperia and Bones and All,

the rapturous coming-of-age drama, Call Me By Your Name, and a terrifically sexy sports movie in last year's challengers. With After the Hunt, he seems tickled to be making a topical melodrama, so much so that the actual topics in question collapse into something of a muddle. That's not to suggest that after the hunt has nothing to say. The film is pointedly set in an era before the backlash against Me Too had fully kicked in, and long before the attacks on DEI initiatives at universities and beyond. Some will find it dated as a result, but this is one point where I think Guadonino and Garrett

know exactly what they're doing. In its final moments, this twisty puzzle reveals itself to be a time capsule, A sad reminder of a moment when progress, whether real or performative, seemed like a possibility. Justin Chang is a film critic for The New Yorker. He reviewed After the Hunt, starring Julia Roberts. If you'd like to find out what's happening behind the scenes of our show, and to get our producers' recommendations on what to watch, read, and listen to, subscribe to our free newsletter at WHYY.com.

Network slash Fresh Air. Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our managing producer is Sam Brigger. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Roberta Shurrock, Anne-Marie Baldwin, Anne-Marie Baudenado, Lauren Crenzel, Teresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Susan Yacundi, and Anna Bauman. Our digital media producer is Molly C.B. Nesper. Our consulting visual producer is Hope Wilson.

Thea Challoner directed today's show. With Terry Gross, I'm Tanya Mosley.