When the armed government squads marched in and took up positions throughout the chamber, legislators understood what was required of them: approve the president’s plan for mass detention and additional troops to fight crime on the homefront.

The legislation passed and five years later El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele continues to serve as an ominous reminder of how swiftly democracy can be suppressed. Bukele’s project of making the military and national police part of his ruling apparatus helped cement his power. Just this month, new legislation sweeping away term limits was approved; Bukele can remain in office, it seems, for as long as he is willing to deploy armed government personnel to satisfy his base and cow political opponents.

It would have been unthinkable to consider a similar episode in our own country, where concerns about military power (including a revulsion for standing armies and militia entering private property) shaped our founding documents. The framers came of age at a time when British soldiers patrolled the streets and cracked down on critics of the king. George Washington surrendered his officer’s commission before taking the first presidential oath of office to underscore the importance of keeping the military subservient to democracy. As a result, our military has consistently polled as one of the most trusted institutions in the country, as it represents the interests of all Americans, not one party or one leader.

With midterm elections approaching, blinking red lights now abound across the military and at federal law enforcement agencies as they’re methodically drawn into the president’s ruling apparatus. Every new broken norm and federal intrusion into local jurisdictions further destabilizes the healthy civilian-military balance our nation has prioritized since our founding. The presence of armed troops and federal law enforcement deploying across the nation’s capital is a worrisome signpost pointing to what lies ahead.

Consider that recent military deployments to Los Angeles to support immigration enforcement were made, like the D.C. deployment, against the wishes of state and local leaders. Deployments over local elected officials’ protests are a rarity in American history, and immediately politicized an already tense situation. Americans’ faith in their own military is now at risk, as is morale inside the military.

Newly reported plans to amplify these deployments to more cities and create a military “reaction force” to rapidly respond to civil unrest throughout the country threatens ever more armed government personnel on American streets –– which already includes federal agents massing at a Democratic governor’s press conference, detaining multiple elected Democrats, and others showing off branded law enforcement vehicles prominently featuring President Donald Trump’s name.

Rather than serving the laws, the American people, or the constitution to which they swore allegiance, our nation’s military and federal law enforcement are slowly being cast into the role of political henchmen for the president.

If patterns in other backsliding democracies are any guide, government agents with guns will eventually be used to suppress free and fair elections, intimidate opposition candidates, and worse. In the Philippines, then-President Rodrigo Duterte deployed federal law enforcement and the military on civil society in a violent war on crime that killed tens of thousands of civilians without any due process, but also served as cover for silencing opponents of the administration and settling countless feuds. From Venezuela to Nicaragua to Belarus, militaries and state law enforcement have chased political opponents out of the arena, incarcerated citizens without due process, and rigged elections for the benefit of the chief executive in charge.

Standing up for democracy and the rule of law requires fealty to the Constitution, not one leader. And there are resources for those in the military and national law enforcement agencies, as well as citizens, for defending our constitutional order. Foremost is Congress, which has a duty to conduct regular oversight of the military and assure our troops are not being mistreated, or used to mistreat their fellow Americans.

Congressional committees tasked with national security and military affairs should at the very least be asking questions about the administration’s deployment, determining if these deployments are strengthening our national security posture and morale within the services, while making sure all laws are followed. One question they could ask is how all the domestic deployments will be funded, and if the mounting costs will require that training be cut or military housing fixes deferred. A 60-day deployment in Los Angeles cost the federal government $134 million.

The coming weeks and months threaten more troops and federal law enforcement fanning across civilian society in service to the president’s agenda — and more protests against these deployments are sure to follow. How these unfold may be determinative for our democracy.

Jon Steinman is an advocacy strategist at the nonpartisan Protect Democracy, where he works to build coalitions and develop tools to address polarization, combat disinformation, and promote the rule of law.