When a federal judge rebuked the Trump administration’s use of the military in Los Angeles earlier this month, he included a little-noticed but shocking footnote.

After National Guard Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman privately objected to the administration’s planned show of force in the city’s MacArthur Park, the footnote said top Department of Homeland Security official Gregory Bovino set about “questioning Sherman’s loyalty to the country.”

Sherman is an Iraq veteran with 30 years of service, and here was a political appointee suggesting he was disloyal for questioning the administration’s plans.

The scene epitomized the political pressure military leaders face as Trump presses forward with deploying the military on US soil and even saying that US cities could be used a “training ground” for troops, as he did Tuesday. His remarkable speech to military generals and admirals in Quantico, Virginia, took things to another level.

Do military leaders unquestioningly go along with an extraordinary gambit that critics – including top former military officials from Trump’s first term – have feared could result in a constitutionally corrosive militarization of the homeland?

Even many Americans appear to have reservations about that possibility. A New York Times-Siena College poll released Tuesday showed more registered voters feared Trump using the troops to intimidate his political opponents than feared crime spiraling out of control without the guard in-use.

Which brings us to the scene Tuesday in Quantico. There were many questions about Defense Secretary Hegseth’s highly unusual summoning of generals and admirals from around the world for a presentation.

For Trump, at least, the occasion appeared to be about getting them on board with his political program.

In a lengthy and often-rambling speech to the military officials, Trump delivered a surfeit of lines that would have been much more appropriate for a campaign rally – delivering them even as the officials sat there silently, as is protocol. He made autopen references and delved into his often overstated claims to have ended more than half a dozen wars and his hopes for a Nobel Peace Prize. The president built up his own achievements and repeatedly attacked Democrats. None of it fit the occasion when addressing what’s supposed to be an apolitical audience.

But most strikingly and most significantly, Trump seemed to try and recruit the generals and admirals to his domestic crackdown.

He and Hegseth tried to pit them against Democrats, academia, supposed left-wing radicals and the media.

Trump suggested the generals and admirals would be crucial to his fight against the “enemy from within” and could use the homeland as a “training ground.”

“We’re under invasion from within,” Trump said. “No different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms.”

He added: “In our inner cities – which we’re going to be talking about because it’s a big part of war now. It’s a big part of war.”

At another point: “I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military – National Guard, but military. Because we’re going into Chicago very soon.”

And: “San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles. They’re very unsafe places. And we’re gonna straighten them out one-by-one. It this is gonna be a major part for some of the people in this room. It’s a war, too. It’s a war from within.”

Trump, who often thrives on crowd energy and interactions with it, repeatedly tried to get the generals and admirals more involved – seemingly craving affirmation , or at least something he could pass off as such.

At one point, he asked them if they were okay with his “they spit, we hit” posture toward protesters.

At another point, he asked them to raise their hands if they thought Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine was “no good.” When they unsurprisingly didn’t raise their hands, Trump treated it an endorsement of his choice.

Trump’s remarks came after a speech from Hegseth which at least was more narrowly focused on his military philosophy. He used his time to pitch the importance of hardened “war-fighters” and ramping up fitness and personal appearance standards at the Defense Department.

But Hegseth’s presentation was highly political too. In addition to repeatedly deriding the supposed “woke”-ness of the military and targeting transgender people (“dudes in dresses,” in Hegseth’s telling), he sought to divide military leaders and what he cast as left-leaning institutions.

“You see, the Ivy League faculty lounges will never understand us, and that’s OK because they could never do what you do,” Hegseth said. “The media will mischaracterize us, and that’s OK because deep down they know the reason they can do what they do is you.”

Trump similarly sought to pit the generals and admirals against Democrats.

“They did not treat you with respect,” Trump said. “They’re Democrats. They never do.”

The message: We’re your real political allies. We’re on your side, and they’re not.

It was a remarkable degradation of the lines between the military and politics, and it was an ominous case-in-point for those who fear Trump’s attempts to politicize the military and what that could portend.

Americans don’t seem to be on board with Trump on this, judging by not just the Times-Siena poll but also other surveys. Americans by and large don’t like the idea of the National Guard on their own or anybody else’s streets.

But Trump is pressing forward. And Tuesday seemed to be about making sure there are no more Maj. Gen. Shermans.

“If you want to applaud, you applaud,” Trump said at the start of the speech, noting how silent the generals and admirals were.

He then added in a joking tone: “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank. There goes your future.”