General Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding military operations against designated terrorist organizations (DTOs) within the United States. His comments followed a series of military strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific Oceans, which resulted in civilian casualties, raising questions about the legality of such actions.

During the testimony, when asked by Senator Jack Reed about the potential for military action against DTOs on U.S. soil, Guillot stated that he would elevate any concerns regarding the legality of orders to higher authorities but would execute orders he deemed lawful. This statement has drawn criticism from legal experts who argue that it overlooks significant legal and ethical issues surrounding military engagement against domestic entities.

Since September, the U.S. military has conducted 25 known operations targeting alleged narco-terrorists, resulting in the deaths of at least 95 individuals, which have been described by some as extrajudicial killings. Elizabeth Goitein from the Brennan Center for Justice highlighted the troubling implications of Guillot's willingness to act on potentially unlawful orders, emphasizing the need for military leaders to uphold the rule of law.

The Pentagon has not clarified whether DTOs operate within the U.S., and the Justice Department has pointed to recent arrests of individuals associated with domestic terrorism, linking them to a broader initiative under National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) issued by former President Donald Trump. This memorandum directed federal agencies to target domestic groups perceived as threats, raising concerns about the potential for misuse of power against political dissent.

Guillot's remarks and the ongoing military operations reflect a significant shift in the role of the military within domestic contexts, which has been met with skepticism regarding the adherence to legal standards and the implications for civil liberties. The situation underscores the importance of maintaining checks and balances in government actions, particularly in the context of national security and law enforcement.