Whether this period becomes a turning point toward renewed civic discipline or a slide into chronic confrontation will depend on the nation’s capacity to resist treating opponents as enemies.
By Matthew A. McIntosh
Public Historian
Brewminate
Introduction
We have a long history of presidents delivering comments to citizens from the Oval Office or another dais and beginning with, “My fellow Americans.” It contained a warmth in greeting of a chosen leader speaking to the people who elected him to the office. That has changed, and Trump may as well begin addresses with his true intent, “Some of my fellow Americans, but only those who support me, not all the LIARS and DEMOCRATS and COMMUNISTS who hate America, not the enemies of the state.” It may be ironic issuing from the mouth of a fascist, but it would at least be honest.
On October 1, 2025, President Trump stood before a military audience at Quantico and spoke openly about deploying U.S. troops to “restore order” and treat American cities as “training grounds.” His remarks were widely framed by media as blurring the line between domestic policing and military operations, a message that circulated instantly throughout MAGA-aligned media and conservative churches.
Within days, clips of his speech were recirculated by pastors and political influencers. Some linked them to calls for “spiritual warfare,” the notion that Americans are engaged in a transcendent battle against internal enemies.
Those parallel threads (political militarism, religious mobilization, and violent plotting) converge now in a moment of rising tension. What once seemed rhetorical bombast is increasingly tied to concrete actions, legal tests, and institutional stress. The question is no longer whether this rhetoric has consequences, but which ones will break first: our norms, our laws, or our civic order.
Historical Context: The Civil War That Never Ended
In the century and a half since Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the United States has never fully resolved the social and moral struggle that produced the Civil War. The battlefield ended, but the belief systems that underpinned it (white supremacy, hierarchical nationalism, and a quasi-religious sense of destiny) remained embedded in politics, churches, and local institutions. The through-line from the Confederacy to today’s MAGA nationalism runs less through flags or monuments than through theology, myth, and grievance.
After Reconstruction collapsed under violent white resistance, the “Lost Cause” narrative re-cast the Confederacy as a noble Christian crusade betrayed by outsiders. That myth became civic religion across much of the South, sanctified in pulpits and textbooks alike. For generations, it supplied a moral vocabulary of persecution and redemption, one that still echoes in conservative politics. As historian Heather Cox Richardson notes, the modern right’s fusion of Christianity and free-market nationalism owes much to this post-Civil War realignment, when southern defeat merged with anti-federal populism to form a new identity of aggrieved virtue.
During the Civil Rights era, those same ideological currents surfaced again, this time dressed in Cold War rhetoric. Segregationists invoked divine authority against federal “tyranny.” The language of states’ rights and spiritual warfare was revived to resist racial equality, laying the groundwork for a movement that viewed secular democracy as an existential threat to Christian America. The 1970s and 1980s solidified the alliance between conservative theology and Republican politics, with the rise of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and later the Christian Coalition. The Republican Party’s Southern Strategy, which capitalized on racial resentment and evangelical mobilization, fused the two legacies, the Civil War’s unfinished ideological struggle and the Cold War’s crusading religiosity.
The result was a political theology that could survive defeat and reinterpret democracy itself as a battlefield between divine order and secular chaos. By the 1990s, “culture war” had become shorthand for this ongoing internal conflict, as right-wing radio and televangelists turned moral panic into political capital. Some commentators argue that this through-line explains why modern “civil war” rhetoric resonates: Americans have been conditioned for generations to see ideological opponents not as rivals but as heretics.
The New Statesman calls this the “unfinished war of the white South,” noting how Trump’s rise revitalized dormant patterns of sectional resentment and religious nationalism. That observation aligns with survey data showing that majorities of self-identified Christian nationalists believe violence may be justified to “save the country.” The legacy of 1865 is thus not merely historical; it’s cultural DNA, resurfacing whenever Americans are told that freedom itself is under siege.
The ideological war that began over slavery’s moral legitimacy has evolved into new battlegrounds (race, gender, education, and secularism) but the underlying impulse remains the same: to define who counts as fully American and whose version of “God and country” will prevail. Every new call for “spiritual warfare,” every sermon invoking divine mandate against political enemies, draws power from that unfinished past. The cannons have fallen silent, but the conviction that one half of the nation is chosen and the other condemned has never been disarmed.
Anatomy of the Rhetoric: “Civil War,” “Spiritual Warfare,” and the Language of Legitimation
The phrase civil war once belonged to history books; today it circulates freely on podcasts, pulpits, and political stages. What was once a warning has become, in some quarters, a rallying cry. MAGA-aligned activists, online influencers, and pastors have repurposed it as both prophecy and strategy. This is proof, they say, that divine destiny requires confrontation with secular America.
At rallies, “civil war” language is rarely metaphorical. Former Trump advisers, members of Congress, and right-wing pundits use it to frame political opposition as treason. On fringe media networks, the phrase “second civil war” trends in hashtags alongside Christian nationalist imagery: swords, crosses, and crusader helmets. The intent is clear: transform political grievance into sacred duty. The rhetoric is no longer confined to anonymous extremists but “openly echoed in congressional corridors,” normalizing the idea that violent polarization is inevitable.
Religious leaders amplify that moral framing, like Sarasota Pastor Brian Gibbs preaching that America is “in spiritual war against demonic forces” and calls congregants to “prepare for battle.” The metaphors are apocalyptic rather than civic, leaving little room for pluralism. At a different end of the movement, conservatives hosted a revival-style memorial service for Charlie Kirk where speakers repeatedly invoked “spiritual warfare” as patriotic obligation—an unmistakable blending of religious ritual and political mobilization.
In these spaces, violence becomes sanctified through metaphor. Sermons about spiritual battle and divine armor migrate seamlessly into Telegram chats and militia forums where followers discuss real weapons and “God-given rights” to resist. The translation from faith to force happens in the gray zone of rhetoric: no explicit command to kill, yet continual validation of a cosmic struggle that makes violence seem preordained. The Department of Justice has already cited this linguistic ecosystem in several prosecutions.
For analysts who track extremism, this is textbook radicalization. The fusion of religion and resentment gives political violence “a sacred gloss that ordinary policing can’t easily penetrate.” MAGA ideologues misread American geography, imagining neat red-blue battle lines when, in reality, ideological fragmentation cuts through neighborhoods, churches, even families. Yet that simplification is precisely what makes the rhetoric powerful: it promises clarity amid chaos, righteousness amid doubt.
The repetition of “war” vocabulary (soldiers of God, armies of light, citizens under siege) performs psychological work. It fuses national identity with divine chosenness and reframes civic disagreement as moral warfare. Once the political opponent is cast as evil, compromise becomes betrayal. Theologians who oppose this movement warn that it revives a medieval cosmology incompatible with democracy: one where the faithful are commanded to conquer, not coexist.
Trump himself reinforces the frame. His speeches portray cities as “enemy territory” and political dissenters as “vermin” or “traitors.” He told troops they may soon be deployed domestically to “restore order” in “lawless blue cities.” For Christian nationalists, that message sounded like scriptural confirmation, God working through government to reclaim the nation. For constitutional scholars, it raised alarm bells about the Posse Comitatus Act and the erosion of civilian-military boundaries.
Language is the hinge between those realities. When political authority and religious conviction use the same war metaphors, the space for civic peace contracts. Each repetition (on airwaves, in pews, on presidential podiums) normalizes the expectation of conflict. The country may not yet be at war, but its words are already mobilized.
On-the-Ground Incidents and Law-Enforcement Cases
The rhetoric of holy battle would remain mere theater if it did not keep producing real-world consequences. But it does. From Michigan to Florida to Texas, federal indictments and extremist investigations reveal how calls for “spiritual warfare” and “civil war” have migrated from pulpits and podcasts to training camps, encrypted chatrooms, and criminal conspiracies.
In late September 2025, federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against a self-proclaimed “apostolic commander” who allegedly trained followers to “kill on contact.” The sermons described the United States as “occupied by Satan’s army” and urged congregants to prepare for divine combat. When investigators raided his property, they found military manuals, tactical vests, and communications outlining plans for violent “purification.” Federal affidavits explicitly linked his doctrine to online networks circulating Trump-era spiritual warfare rhetoric.
Similar movements have surfaced across the country. Gibbs has led prayer rallies framed as “mobilizations for the kingdom.” While his services have not been linked to violence, experts on radical religion warn that such militarized metaphors (“take the territory,” “fight the darkness,” “stand in battle formation”) create psychological continuity between worship and warfare. “It’s the same logic ISIS used,” says one former counterterrorism analyst now at Georgetown University’s Program on Extremism. “You make the fight cosmic, and every act of defiance becomes holy.”
That logic has already spilled into street-level confrontations. The Department of Justice’s 2024–2025 domestic terrorism reports documented a rise in ideologically motivated threats tied to Christian nationalist and white supremacist groups, including attempted bombings of synagogues and LGBTQ community centers. The Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League likewise reported that the “accelerationist right” has adopted biblical justifications for violence, often quoting Ephesians 6:12 (“We wrestle not against flesh and blood”) as pretext for preparing against “enemies of God.”
Law enforcement agencies are increasingly treating these intersections between religious zeal and paramilitary organization as distinct threat categories. The FBI’s 2025 National Threat Assessment (released in May) cited “religiously framed anti-government extremism” as one of the fastest-growing domestic concerns. Analysts at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center describe the emerging hybrid as “theocratic accelerationism”: groups that use Christian nationalist rhetoric to justify overthrowing secular authority.
While these groups remain small, their symbolic power is large. Their language reverberates through the broader MAGA movement, amplified by influencers who romanticize the idea of righteous resistance. When the president himself, speaking before troops at Quantico, described cities as “enemy territory” that must be “liberated” by loyal forces, extremists heard endorsement rather than metaphor. Axios noted that his phrasing echoed previous campaign rallies where he called political opponents “vermin” and promised “retribution.”
Local communities feel the consequences most directly. In Michigan and Pennsylvania, sheriffs have reported surges of armed “faith defense patrols.” In Texas, several rural pastors have openly discussed forming “covenant militias.” In online forums monitored by the Tech Transparency Project, members trade sermons and training videos interchangeably, blending apocalyptic scripture with small-unit tactics.
Civil-rights groups now warn that America’s patchwork of state gun laws and self-defense statutes makes preemption nearly impossible. “You can’t arrest a sermon,” said a senior ACLU attorney in September. “But when spiritual warfare language merges with paramilitary organization, the First Amendment becomes a shield for sedition.”
The challenge for law enforcement lies in the ambiguity. Most of these preachers and influencers stop just short of explicit incitement. They speak instead in parables of divine battle and “righteous resistance,” allowing followers to interpret literal marching orders. The Milwaukee Independent captured that moral slippage bluntly: “The line between faith and fascism is drawn in disappearing ink.”
As the rhetoric escalates and prosecutions multiply, one question grows unavoidable: what happens when the spiritual battlefield these leaders describe meets the actual power of the state? That collision between prophecy and policy is no longer hypothetical.
Institutional Shift: The Military, National Guard Deployments, and Executive Signaling
When a president tells senior officers that America’s “enemy from within” is a priority for the armed forces, and floats using “dangerous” U.S. cities as training grounds, it’s not just rhetoric. It’s executive signaling that reverberates through the chain of command, statehouses, and extremist ecosystems alike. Trump used the rare gathering of generals at Quantico to argue that troops should “restore order” in blue cities and that the military’s primary mission is domestic.
Those signals landed in ongoing political fights over public order in cities like Chicago and Portland. Axios’ Chicago bureau summarized the message bluntly: Trump told military leaders the U.S. should treat cities as training grounds and must “handle” an “enemy from within,” framing urban jurisdictions and Democratic officials as obstacles to security rather than partners in it. That framing, novel in modern civil-military relations, sharpened partisan conflict over who controls force inside state borders
Legally, the administration’s posture points toward two long-standing but narrowly cabined authorities. First is the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars federal troops from enforcing civilian law unless Congress authorizes it. The principle is foundational in U.S. civil-military tradition. Second is the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255), which creates exceptions under defined conditions (some requiring state consent, others not) to deploy active-duty forces or federalize the National Guard. The U.S. Code and reputable legal explainers outline those triggers and limits.
What’s new is not the existence of these statutes but the political intent telegraphed around them. Trump’s Quantico comments and surrounding coverage, including a piece explicitly headlined that cities should be used as “training grounds,” suggest an administration prepared to test the gray areas between domestic military support and direct law-enforcement roles. Civil-rights groups and many legal scholars warn that this risks normalizing the military as a domestic policing tool, a break with post-Reconstruction norms reinforced by Posse Comitatus and decades of practice.
Even absent a formal Insurrection Act invocation, signaling alone shifts incentives. Governors and big-city mayors brace for federal pressure and legal brinkmanship; police unions and some sheriffs perceive political cover; and extremist networks interpret presidential rhetoric as validation. The Quantico meeting captured that triangulation: a White House portraying urban jurisdictions as “enemy territory,” a defense secretary promising a culture reset, and critics warning about eroding guardrails.
The stakes are constitutional as much as tactical. Under §§ 251–253 of the Insurrection Act, a president can deploy forces to enforce federal law or protect constitutional rights when ordinary judicial processes are “impracticable,” including without state consent, a power critics say is dangerously broad and ripe for abuse. Legal guides by the Brennan Center and CRS emphasize that while the statute exists, its legitimate use requires precise findings and a proclamation to disperse; history shows courts and Congress scrutinize these moves closely.
In short: the administration’s Quantico line (cities as training grounds, “enemy from within,” and a domestically focused mission) marks an institutional pivot. Whether or not the Insurrection Act is invoked, the threat of invocation and the drumbeat of militarized language already alter the civil-military balance that has long kept federal troops at arm’s length from routine policing. The law permits narrow exceptions; the politics now press their boundaries.
The Religious-Political Network: Organizations, Commissions, and Funding
If the rhetoric of “spiritual warfare” is the soundtrack, a sprawling infrastructure supplies the stage, lighting, and distribution. On one axis are high-visibility influencers and ministries that fuse worship with mobilization; on another are policy shops and legal nonprofits working to re-write church-state rules; stitched between them are donor pipelines and media platforms that carry the message from pulpit to policy.
Start with the movement’s cultural amplifiers. After Charlie Kirk’s killing, memorial events doubled as revival-style rallies, with repeated invocations of “spiritual warfare” and a strong nationalist frame, a mixing of liturgy and politics. Those reports capture how MAGA-aligned religio-political leaders used martyrdom language to energize supporters and position political struggle as sacred duty.
At the congregational level, local pastors have adopted similar frames. Gibbs has openly preached that the U.S. is in a “spiritual war,” invoking “warring angels” and urging congregants to “prepare for battle.” These stories illustrate how militant metaphors circulate from national influencers into church life, not proof of violence, but clear evidence of a mobilizing religious vernacular.
Parallel to this grassroots-to-influencer pipeline is a formal policy arm taking shape in Washington. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) has tracked the administration’s Religious Liberty Commission, a body it argues is advancing a sectarian agenda under the banner of “religious freedom,” convening at venues like the Museum of the Bible and foregrounding priorities that would erode church-state separation. AU’s dossier and recent analysis detail the commission’s participants, themes, and stated aims, making the case that “religious liberty” is being reframed to privilege one set of theological claims in law and policy. (Readers can consult AU’s explainer hub and its late-September report for specifics.)
The legal ecosystem extends beyond Washington. Conservative litigation groups, notably First Liberty Institute, are advancing cases designed to redraw the boundary between church and state. Reporting highlighted First Liberty’s campaign to crown Florida the top “religious freedom” state, part of a broader court-centric strategy that, if successful, would normalize expanded religious exemptions and privileges in public institutions. These legal wins don’t require mass mobilization; they change the rules that govern everyone else.
Media and money bind these layers together. The Kirk/Turning Point USA network and allied outlets provide an always-on channel that converts legal developments and pastoral messaging into recruitment, fundraising, and campus organizing. Coverage since September shows how martyr narratives and revival aesthetics quickly translated into growth claims and new chapter requests, demonstrating how movement media monetizes moments of crisis.
Finally, the policy tail wags the enforcement dog. As the White House escalates talk, and actions, around domestic deployments and “war from within,” legal nonprofits and commissions aligned with Christian nationalist priorities gain leverage: they can claim the state as an instrument of moral order while redefining “religious liberty” to privilege their allies. That interplay between executive signaling and movement infrastructure helps explain why civil-war rhetoric doesn’t remain online: it is scaffolded by organizations with budgets, lawyers, communications teams, and access.
Voices Across the Divide
A pastor invoking “spiritual warfare.” In Sarasota, Gibbs has preached that America is engaged in a cosmic struggle, praying for “warring angels” and urging congregants to prepare for a spiritual battle, language documented by local investigative outlet Suncoast Searchlight and public radio partners.
Movement influencers blending revival and politics. At memorial events following Charlie Kirk’s killing, speakers repeatedly called for “spiritual warfare,” creating a fusion of revival aesthetics and political mobilization. Religion Dispatches chronicled the service and its messaging in detail at “Part MAGA Rally, Part Christian Revival”.
A counterpoint from civil-liberties advocates. The administration’s Religious Liberty Commission is channeling a sectarian policy agenda under the banner of “religious freedom,” with hearings and public events that, in AU’s view, aim to privilege one faith in public life. AU’s analysis and resource hub are here.
Law-enforcement and extremism lens. Federal court filings describe how religiously charged rhetoric can intersect with criminal conspiracies. In late September, Detroit’s Local 4/ClickOnDetroit summarized allegations that a self-described religious leader trained followers to “kill on contact,” part of a forced-labor and laundering case tied to a Michigan-rooted ministry.
A constitutional-law view on military use at home. Legal scholars emphasize that while the Posse Comitatus Act generally bars federal troops from civilian law enforcement, the Insurrection Act provides exceptions, and grants wide presidential discretion that many experts find dangerously broad.
State and local officials under pressure. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson have publicly condemned the administration’s deployments and rhetoric, calling them unconstitutional overreach and vowing to fight in court.
The president and his defense team. In his Quantico remarks, and in adjacent coverage, President Trump cast urban unrest and political opposition as an “enemy from within,” pairing domestic missions with talk of using cities as “training grounds” for troops.
A historian’s frame. Commentators trace today’s rhetoric to long historical arcs underscore why “civil war” talk resonates.
How Dangerous Is This, Really? Threat Scenarios and Risk Modeling
The baseline: U.S. authorities and major research groups continue to identify domestic violent extremism as a persistent threat. The FBI’s own public materials describe a durable domestic-terrorism risk and outline how constitutionally protected speech can slide into criminal mobilization when individuals cross from advocacy to violent action.
The current vector: Across the last several years, open-source datasets and news syntheses show that far-right violence remains more frequent and deadly than left-wing violence, a pattern that analysts say is still visible in 2024–2025 incident data and prosecutions. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s 2025 dispatches, while advocacy-oriented, document active organizing and paramilitary aesthetics in new and rebranded groups (“decentralized,” “patriotic” branding; selective recruitment; field training).
What’s changed in 2025: The salience of state power in the narrative. Trump’s Quantico remarks about using U.S. cities as military “training grounds” and confronting an “enemy from within” moved the rhetoric from online subculture to the commander-in-chief’s podium, with mainstream outlets and military press capturing the quotes. That signaling matters because it lowers the perceived barrier between political grievance and state force.
Risk pathways to watch (near-term):
- Stochastic violence by lone actors inspired by “spiritual warfare” framing. Sermons and influencer content that moralize conflict can function as permission structures; recent federal cases describe precisely this bridge from religiously charged language to tactical preparation.
- Ad hoc paramilitary cells. SPLC’s 2025 field notes point to groups mixing social bonding, firearms training, and secrecy. Even small numbers can generate outsized harm (critical-infrastructure sabotage, targeted assaults, intimidation of local officials).
- Flashpoint confrontations at federal facilities. The Chicago theater illustrates how federal deployments, especially around ICE operations, can create recurring protest-policing clashes that extremists exploit for recruitment and escalation.
- Legal-authoritarian cascade. A formal or threatened invocation of the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty forces for domestic missions shifts the risk environment, even if courts later limit it. The law’s breadth and history are well-explained by legal analysts; recent reporting underscores how frequently it is being floated in 2025.
Why rhetoric now “moves the needle”: When presidential messaging and movement preachers use overlapping “war” frames, mobilization thresholds drop. Analysts worry less about a single nationwide conflagration and more about distributed volatility: many small, potentially lethal incidents that accumulate political impact. This is consistent with law-enforcement guidance that focuses on mobilization indicators (behavioral change, acquisition of gear, target selection), not just ideology.
Counter-pressures and complicating factors:
- Data ecosystem shock: The Anti-Defamation League recently took down its public “Glossary of Extremism” after controversy, narrowing one long-standing open-source reference point for journalists and civic groups. Other ADL datasets and reporting remain, but the glossary’s removal reduces a common quick-check tool.
- Governance friction: Governors and mayors are challenging troop deployments and federal roles in court, which can restrain or slow executive actions, but litigation timelines may lag street-level escalation.
Bottom line: A classic large-scale “civil war” is unlikely; the geography, policing capacity, and political economy of the U.S. don’t support symmetrical battle lines. The plausible high-risk scenario is an asymmetric, rolling conflict: lone-actor and small-cell violence, punctuated by periodic federal-local confrontations around immigration and protest control, all framed by leaders who describe opponents as an internal enemy. Executive signaling (Quantico), plus movement religious rhetoric, increases the probability of that scenario relative to 2023–2024 baselines.
Policy, Law, and Civic Remedies
Reinforce the legal guardrails on domestic military use.
Congress and state attorneys general should publicly re-state the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act and the narrow exceptions in the Insurrection Act, and be prepared to litigate any overbroad deployment. Clear primers exist for both: see the CRS explainer on Posse Comitatus and the Brennan Center’s Insurrection Act guide, which detail Sections 251–253 and historical uses. Embedding these standards in state AG guidance and city legal memos makes the playing field explicit before a crisis, not during it.
Codify “bright lines” for federal–state roles in public order.
States can pass contingency statutes requiring immediate notification to legislatures and courts if active-duty forces are requested or deployed, mirroring the transparency norms in CRS guidance and legal briefs that track Insurrection Act invocations. Public, prewritten litigation templates shorten the timeline to seek TROs or injunctions if deployments exceed statutory triggers.
Use prevention infrastructure that’s already built (or rebuild what’s been cut).
Localities, universities, and faith coalitions should stand up (or expand) multidisciplinary behavioral threat assessment and management teams using the Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) materials, a public-health model focused on pre-incident intervention, not ideology policing. Practical toolkits and training modules are available via CP3’s resource center and one-pagers. Where federal support has been downsized, states, counties, and philanthropy can bridge the gap.
Anchor responses in shared legal definitions, not partisan labels.
City and state guidance for police, schools, and social-service partners should cite the joint FBI–DHS definitions and methodology for domestic terrorism (and the CRS overview of statutory definitions) so case triage is tied to conduct and mobilization indicators, not beliefs or protected speech. This reduces First Amendment risk and improves consistency across agencies.
Resource the front lines that reduce violence, not just react to it.
Independent of federal swings, governors and mayors can fund local violence-interruption, targeted-violence prevention, and victim-services work through state criminal-justice grants and ARPA reprogramming, especially if federal grants have been canceled or downsized. (Recent reporting documents cuts to prevention and victim-support lines at DOJ and DHS-aligned programs.)
Support faith leaders who reject “holy war” politics.
Interfaith councils can publish model sermons and community statements that explicitly repudiate political calls for “spiritual warfare” against domestic opponents while affirming nonviolence and pluralism. Pair those statements with CP3-style referral pathways so clergy have somewhere to send congregants showing warning behaviors before harm occurs.
Harden civic spaces against flashpoint escalation.
Municipalities should pre-plan protest management with an emphasis on de-escalation, clear arrest-authority boundaries, and rapid rumor control. Align police operations with the FBI/DHS posture that protected speech is not a predicate and that interventions focus on criminal mobilization (weapons procurement, target selection, explicit plots). Publicly posting these rules helps inoculate communities against actors trying to provoke clashes.
Mandate transparency around “religious liberty” policymaking.
Where official bodies (e.g., a Religious Liberty Commission) are advancing rules with sectarian effects, require open meetings, comment periods, and disclosure of outside contacts. Civil-liberties monitors argue these safeguards are necessary to prevent church-state entanglement; their dossiers outline specific transparency gaps to close.
Platform cooperation without viewpoint policing.
Local governments and NGOs should maintain trusted-flagger relationships with platforms around behavioral risk (explicit threats, doxxing, target lists, weapons-training coordination) rather than theological language. Tie escalation requests to the FBI-DHS definition set and local criminal statutes to reduce overreach and improve takedown success.
Data, not vibes: build open indicators dashboards.
Cities can publish monthly dashboards tracking arrests tied to violent plots, hate crimes, and weapons seizures near sensitive sites. When the narrative space fills with “civil war” talk, transparent data helps communities calibrate risk, and makes it harder for opportunists to launder rumor into recruitment.
Civic muscle memory.
Finally, treat prevention like fire safety: practice it. Regularly exercise coordination among city legal teams (for fast Insurrection Act challenges), police and sheriffs (for de-escalation and threat-assessment referrals), school districts (for leakage reporting), and interfaith partners (for counter-narrative and referrals). The tools are there; the question is whether leaders will use them before a flashpoint, not after.
Conclusion
In the first week of October 2025, National Guard units were being sent into Chicago after President Trump urged the military to “restore order” and treat cities as “training grounds.” Illinois Governor Pritzker and Mayor Johnson denounced the move as unconstitutional and prepared to challenge it in court. Civil-rights organizations and interfaith coalitions issued joint statements warning that the deployments risked inflaming, not easing, division.
At the same time, national watchdogs and journalists continued documenting how the rhetoric of “spiritual warfare” was being invoked by pastors and political influencers alike. Federal investigators, meanwhile, pursued criminal cases where that language had allegedly crossed into acts of violence.
Together, these developments illustrate how the boundaries between politics, religion, and security are blurring in real time. What began as metaphor now shapes policy and policing; what once lived on fringe livestreams now informs speeches from the nation’s highest office. The country stands in a moment where words and law converge, testing the resilience of constitutional norms built to separate church from state and civilian life from military power.
Whether this period becomes a turning point toward renewed civic discipline or a slide into chronic confrontation will depend on the nation’s capacity to resist treating opponents as enemies. That struggle, to hold faith and freedom in the same frame, is the real contest unfolding in America’s second decade of the twenty-first century.
Originally published by Brewminate, 10.10.2025, under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
About the Author
