In recent days, American social media has been flooded with a dramatic video: a top-ranking general stands up in the middle of a White House meeting, points directly at Donald Trump, and calls him a “traitor to the Constitution and the country”. Although this specific video was later confirmed to be a fictional dramatization, its viral nature has exposed an undeniable reality: the relationship between the 45th (and now 47th) President and the senior military leadership is in the midst of the deepest constitutional crisis in modern history.

While a cinematic, face-to-face confrontation may not have occurred in public, the real-world conflicts have been far more intense. Donald Trump has not hesitated to label General Mark Milley—the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—a “traitor”.

Threats of Execution: On Truth Social, Trump suggested that Milley’s actions—specifically his contact with Chinese counterparts to avoid an accidental war during the final days of Trump’s first term—constituted treason and, in “times gone by,” would have warranted the death penalty.The Generals’ Counterattack: In response, General Milley—after retiring—publicly warned that Trump possesses the “instincts of a wannabe dictator” and represents a genuine threat to American democracy.

Why are the generals so concerned? The core of the issue lies in the fear that Trump will use the military for personal political gain, violating the Constitution.

Domestic Use of the Military: Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy regular troops in American cities to suppress protests or combat crime. The military establishment believes this constitutes a grave abuse of power against American citizens.Unauthorized Strikes: Reports indicate that during his first term, Trump considered military strikes against Iran or Venezuela without consulting Congress. Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war.

In his current term (2026), the Trump administration is reportedly considering recalling retired military officers to face court-martial for “disloyalty” or “treason”.

The Case of Mark Kelly and Mark Milley: The Pentagon, under Secretary Pete Hegseth, has initiated investigations into retired officers like Senator Mark Kelly and General Milley, revoking security clearances and ending security details.A Chilling Effect: These actions have created a “chilling effect” throughout the armed forces. Active-duty officers see the treatment of those who spoke up for the Constitution and may begin to self-censor for fear of retaliation.

The friction extends beyond internal borders. Trump’s renewed insistence on purchasing Greenland from Denmark has been viewed by some generals and lawmakers as strategically “absurd” and damaging to key alliances.

Greenland Tariffs: Trump has announced a 10% tariff—increasing to 25% by June 2026—on Denmark and seven other European nations for opposing his acquisition plan.NATO Tensions: NATO members feel insulted and threatened by these “transactional” tactics, which prioritize personal legacy over shared security interests.

Fictional videos of generals confronting Trump go viral because they satisfy a public desire: a wish to see someone with actual power stand up against what they perceive as the destruction of democratic norms.

However, in a healthy democracy, the military should never be a political arbiter. The responsibility to check Presidential power belongs to Congress through impeachment, the courts through prosecution, and the voters through elections.

Conclusion: Civil-military relations in the United States are facing an existential test. Donald Trump views the military as a personal tool, while the military leadership views itself as the guardian of the Constitution. When these values collide, it produces more than just viral videos; it creates cracks that could eventually collapse the American system of checks and balances.