I was wrong.

For years, despite all of the partisan fighting, I’ve been very dismissive of the idea that our country would become entangled in another civil war. But, unfortunately, we might be in the early stages of one.

One of the main reasons why I couldn’t imagine internecine conflict is because states are more politically diverse than just a collection of solid red and solid blue on an Electoral College map. For example, while Republicans love to criticize California as a Democratic hellscape, more people voted for Donald Trump in the Golden State (more than 6 million) than in the dozen smallest states where the president finished ahead of Kamala Harris – combined. Where would Trump voters in California go to fight in a civil war? Los Angeles or Oregon?

But diversity and nuance are reasons why I should be more open-minded about a modern civil war. I apparently needed to remind myself that Americans in the North and South were not uniform in their views during the 1860s. I’m sure there were people in each region that didn’t agree with the majority view on slavery or states’ rights.

By definition, a civil war is a war between citizens of the same country, not necessarily one between homogenous states. 

Which brings us to today where, were it not for a court order, we’d have Texans ready to do battle against Oregonians. Texas National Guard soldiers landed in Illinois this week. And we’ve already had South Carolinians in Washington, D.C., ready to take on American citizens in the nation’s capital. 

The potential for war is not a far-fetched concept pushed by Trump’s critics. The president embraces the terminology. He’s described both Chicago and Portland as war zones and talked about some Democratic-run cities as home to “the war from within” and potential training grounds for the military. 

Of course, a president mobilizing the National Guard is not novel. It’s common when responding to a disaster response at the request of the governor. But that’s in stark contrast to the current situation, in which the Democratic governors of Oregon and Illinois are against the deployment of troops to their own states.

A few previous presidents have deployed the National Guard to address civil disturbances, but it’s typically been within a single state – Dwight D. Eisenhower in Arkansas, John F. Kennedy in Mississippi and Alabama, and Lyndon B. Johnson in Michigan. But mobilizing the National Guard from one state to another to fight crime – as Trump has done – is not normal.

While the current actions could fall under the president’s broad crime-fighting mission, using the military, specifically the National Guard, to police street crime should be in a different category. Whether you agree with the tactics or not, mobilizing the National Guard against U.S. citizens engaged in potentially unlawful activity is different from deploying federal agents to detain noncitizens who are in the country illegally. But some Republicans are clearly comfortable with the ends justifying the means.

Some Republicans will also say that it’s not a war because there’s no fighting. In their words, it’s simply an attempt to keep the peace and protect federal workers and facilities. But we’ve already seen patrolling National Guard members in D.C. venture away from federal buildings and guard units that are clearly armed for battle. By declaring war on domestic terrorist organizations, the White House appears to be setting the stage for a broader mission for the National Guard.

The bottom line is that the pieces are in place for a civil war even if it doesn’t meet a strict definition. Sadly, engagement feels more inevitable than it has ever been in recent history. 

The politics

Regardless of whether a civil war is upon us, Trump’s actions are in the news and in the public spotlight. So, how will it play politically? The initial answer is not well, at least so far. 

Fifty-eight percent of adults opposed Trump deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities, according to an Oct. 1-3 CBS News/YouGov poll, while 42 percent were in favor. Unsurprisingly, the survey found a partisan divide,  with 79 percent of Republicans saying Trump should deploy active duty U.S. military to cities compared with 8 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of independents who agreed with that approach.  

More broadly, it’s just another example of Trump beginning on the popular side of an issue (cracking down on violent crime) but then taking two or three steps too far in the implementation, arriving on the wrong side, politically. Despite the bravado on the Republican side, fueled by the 2024 election results and claims that the president is simply delivering on promises, Trump’s political standing is mediocre at best. 

His job approval rating is upside down by 12 points on average (42 percent approve vs. 54 percent disapprove), according to G. Elliott Morris, formerly of FiveThirtyEight. 

It’s a similar picture when looking beneath the surface at individual issues. The president is underwater by an average of 5.5 points on immigration, 7.1 points on deportations, and even worse on jobs and the economy (-15.1 points) and inflation/cost of living (-26.7 points). And while Trump fundamentally believes in his tariff policy, his job rating on trade is also in negative territory at -16.6 points. 

While Trump and Republicans have claimed an electoral mandate, voters don’t appear satisfied with their actions or results up to this point. 

Why does it matter for the 2026 midterm elections? If Trump remains unpopular or has a poor job approval rating, Republicans’ majorities in Congress would be more at risk. Voters will see a need to either punish GOP candidates or send more Democrats to Washington to serve as a check on the party in power.