Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The greatest danger in Trump’s vision for the U.S. military

Published

on

The greatest danger in Trump’s vision for the U.S. military

Since the election, a series of stories have proved — if proof were needed — that President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric about using the U.S. military against political opponents should be taken quite seriously.

First, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s team is considering creating a board of retired senior officers to review serving generals and admirals. (BLN has not been able to confirm the report.) These were then followed by multiple reports of Trump planning to fire the most senior officers and replace them with generals and admirals more closely aligned with the president-elect. The third step was the naming of Fox News host Pete Hegseth as his choice for secretary of defense. Hegseth has made many extreme statements about the U.S. military, including questioning the efforts to build a diverse force.

All together, these reports, if accurate, indicate that the long history of the United States having a nonpartisan military may be at an end.

Even the most competent of these officers are far more likely to make major mistakes as they try to anticipate what might curry favor with the president.

Why is this so important? First, keeping the U.S. military out of partisan battles and keeping partisan bickering out of the military has been key to American military might for generations. When political loyalty replaces merit for promotion and selection to key commands, effectiveness suffers. Such militaries are led not by the most qualified officers, but by those who have most professed fealty to the chief executive. Even the most competent of these officers are far more likely to make major mistakes as they try to anticipate what might curry favor with the president rather than focus their assessments on battlefield realities.

The American military watched this dynamic firsthand when training the Iraqi forces in the late 2000s and early 2010s. When their officers were promoted based on merit, the Iraqis did well. But as partisan dynamics increasingly shaped promotions, the Iraqi army crumbled against the Islamic State’s attacks in 2014.

Second, civilian control of the armed forces depends on officers giving professional advice to leadership so that the civilians can make the big decisions concerning when to go to war, where to focus one’s efforts and so forth. Partisan generals and admirals would only tell the president what he wants to hear, making it more likely the U.S. blunders into a crisis. Again, we have seen this repeatedly happen around the world, including most recently with Russian generals telling Vladimir Putin that defeating Ukraine would be quick and easy.

Third, making partisan identity more important within the armed forces threatens to disrupt the cohesion of American military units. The irony here is clear — that those who have argued against women in combat roles and against efforts to create a diverse force, as Hegseth has, usually cite the threat these people pose to unit cohesion. Yet it is precisely the politicization of the military, making promotion contingent on partisan identity, that is most likely to create suspicion, distrust and rivalry within the American armed forces. Members of the armed forces will view the promotions of others as due to their political connections and loyalty to an individual and a party rather than to the Constitution.

Finally, the greatest danger is that the president might use American troops against the American people. Trump promised in his campaign to use the military against the “enemy within,” referring to his political foes. While the National Guard has been called out frequently in American history to deal with natural disasters and riots, the regular forces have been used rarely over the past hundred years. Famously, presidents from both parties, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, called out the U.S. Army to enforce the Supreme Court’s rulings on integrating schools. In neither case was the military using force against the president’s opponents, but instead enforcing the court’s decisions at a time when the court was not seen as a partisan actor.

The strains and divisions and distractions are simply bad for military effectiveness.

Trump, by contrast, threatened to use the Insurrection Act in 2020 to deploy the military against those protesting police brutality. With a much more compliant secretary of defense and with more partisan generals, after purging those who were promoted via normal procedures, Trump is far more likely to use the Army to put down protests in his second term. This, in turn, would divide the military, as not all members will follow such orders even if they are lawful. In addition, another pattern of civil-military relations is that the more a military is used for domestic order, the less effective it is at fighting foes abroad. The strains and divisions and distractions are simply bad for military effectiveness.

While the second Trump administration has not begun formally, its early preparations indicate a desire and, yes, a plan to make the military subservient to one politician and one party, rather than serving the country and the national interest. This will be more harmful to the American military than the defeat in Vietnam or the withdrawal from Afghanistan. And it will weaken U.S. standing in the world even as America’s adversaries are increasingly aggressive.

Stephen Saideman

Stephen Saideman is the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University and director of the Canadian Defence and Security Network.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Joe Scarborough slams GOP for ‘screwing their own constituents’ to protect ICE

Published

on

Joe Scarborough slams GOP for ‘screwing their own constituents’ to protect ICE

Joe Scarborough slammed Republicans on Thursday’s “Morning Joe” for their repeated refusal to partner with Democrats to reopen some parts of the Department of Homeland Securityas the showdown in Washington, D.C., over federal immigration enforcement continues.

“Sometimes things are complicated and confusing,” Scarborough said. “This is not confusing.”

As he explained, Democrats are currently pushing legislation to partially fund some agencies inside DHS, including the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agencyor FEMA. However, in order to pass those bills, Democrats, as the minority party, need Republicans to join in on the effort.

“If everybody agrees on something, they can pass it with unanimous consent. So Democrats keep going to the Senate floor,” Scarborough said, and “Republicans stand up and say no.”

A majority of the department’s funding has been withheld since the shutdown began on Feb. 14, when Democrats demanded a major overhaul of the agency carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation effort.

Last week, more than 100,000 DHS workers missed their first full paycheck. Despite not being paid, many of those workers are considered essential employees and therefore are required to work during the shutdown.

“Republicans keep killing these opportunities to pay these people for the work they’re doing to keep us safe, in the air, on the seas,” Scarborough said. “All of this is to allow ICE to continue being the out-of-control, reckless agency that it was under Kristi Noem.”

Scarborough said he couldn’t understand “why Republicans are screwing their own constituents every single day: businesspeople that have to fly, families that have to get home to see their mothers or their fathers or the grandmothers or the grandfathers, parents that need to get to the kids to help with a child that may be sick.”

“I mean, why are Republicans doing this?” he asked. “Why aren’t they stopping this? Why is ICE so important to them that they are screwing their own constituents to protect guys in masks?”

You can watch Scarborough’s analysis in the clip at the top of the page.

Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The years I spent defending César Chávez make me feel like a fool

Published

on

The years I spent defending César Chávez make me feel like a fool

Dolores Huerta and I shared the stage in November at a Chicago event honoring Latino leaders and journalists from the United States. What I remember most about that day was seeing the ballroom of mostly Latina women lining up to thank the co-founder of United Farm Workers and get her thoughts on how to respond to the way our communities have been targeted.

ICE was continuing its raids in Chicago, but here was Huerta, 95 years old, buoying us all.

I remember the servers, too, some of whom stopped after the event to take photos with Huerta and share that their local union uses the same labor-organizing tactics she did with the UFW. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was continuing its raids in Chicago, but here was Huerta, 95 years old, buoying us all. Here was our elder, imploring us to never give up, to keep organizing and fighting. If possible. Not as a slogan, but as something living and breathing in that room.

The New York Times on Wednesday published a multiyear investigation into allegations of sexual abuse of minors and rape against the other co-founder of the UFW: César Chávez. In part because I grew up with such a deep admiration of Chávez, reading Ana Murguia and Debra Rojas, both 66 years old, describe the pain they said Chávez inflicted upon them stopped me cold.

Then Huerta revealed that she had two unwelcome encounters with Chávez, one of which she described as rape. The two encounters, she said, resulted in two babies, whom she gave away to others to raise.

A black and white, archival photo showing Dolores Huerta, left, and Cesar Chavez — as well as other people — holding photos of the conditions that farmworkers endure in San Joaquin Valley farm labor camps.
United Farm Workers leaders Dolores Huerta, left, and Cesar Chavez at a news conference outside a U.S. District Court on Nov. 21, 1989, in Fresno, Calif. Richard Darby / Fresno Bee file / Tribune News Service via Getty Images

“I carried this secret for as long as I did,” she wrote, “because building the movement and securing farmworker rights was my life’s work.”

I sat with that for a long time.

In the 1970s, when I was a young boy who had just moved from Puerto Rico to the Bronx, Chávez was one of the first brown faces I saw on television. Few Latino men seemed to be fighting for something on television, but he was. I will forever argue that U.S. Latinos are not a monolith, but at a time when this country painted us as one, Chávez felt like our sole political leader.

“He represented the best of us — and by us, I mean Latino America,” said Manny Fernandez, the Times’ California editor and co-writer of Wednesday’s bombshell of a story. “And to discover that Chavez had this dark side is disturbing. But we do need to know who our heroes are.”

Chávez eventually reached the pinnacle of being the most famous Latino in the U.S. He passed away in 1993 and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor by former President Bill Clinton in 1994, and his bust graced the Biden Oval Office. His quotes about community and the fight for social justice were part of the U.S. Latino lexicon. And the Times story about him being a predator and Huerta’s confirmation of it have sent shockwaves throughout the community.

To discover that Chavez had this dark side is disturbing. But we do need to know who our heroes are.

the new york times’ manny fernandez

Those of us who have studied his life in detail already know he was incredibly complicated. Biographers have documented his extramarital affairs, his authoritarian leadership and purges of his staff. Chávez once thought of undocumented workers as union scabs, a fact that right-wingers love to cite. But nothing prepared me for what Murguia, Rojas and Huerta revealed. They did not describe a complicated man. They described a rapist — a rapist of minors.

Ace Gustavo Arellano”https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-18/cesar-chavez-myth-abuse-allegations”>wrote in his column for the Los Angeles Times: “Much of the Latino civil rights, political and educational ecosystem will have to grapple with why they held up Chávez as a paragon of virtue for too long above others just as deserving and, as it turns out, nowhere near as compromised. In any event, the myth has been punctured.”

Chávez’s complexity was something I explored in the past and at times, defended. Regarding his immigration views, in 2021, I finally found a 1974 letter proving that he shifted his position and was not the anti-immigrant hard-liner the right tried to make him. I spent years making sure that history was accurate. And even though I was defending his views on immigration, and not defending him against allegations of rape, reading the three women’s accounts Wednesday still left me feeling like a fool.

Dolores Huerta, left, and Julio Ricardo Varela smiling for a picture.
Dolores Huerta, left, and Julio Ricardo Varela at the ¡BRAVO! National Awards Gala on Nov. 13, 2025, in Chicago. Courtesy Julio Ricardo Varela

The Chávez family released a statement that said, in part: “Our family is shocked and saddened to learn of news that our father, Cesar Chavez, engaged in sexual impropriety with women and minors nearly 50 years ago. As a family steeped in the values of equity and justice, we honor the voices of those who feel unheard and who report sexual abuse. This is deeply painful to our family.”

After an acknowledgement that his family has its own good memories of him, the statement said, “We hope these matters are approached thoughtfully and fairly.”

Chávez’s name adorns an untold number of streets, schools and parks in this country. His name should be removed from all of those places: every one.

“Everything should be named for the martyrs of the farm workers movement,” Huerta told Latino USA. “Every name should be named after them.”

By Thursday, California had already begun the process of changing César Chávez Day, March 31, to Farmworkers Day.

In that same Latino USA interview, Huerta said it was the courage of women such as Murguia and Rojas who gave her the courage to speak out now.

I used to see Chávez as a hero, but now I realize that our greatest heroes are the ones who speak out even if it means revealing their own pain. What Huerta did was brave, and it is no surprise that she has received an outpouring of love and support. She did not have to say a word. She could have kept her silence, and she would still be loved and admired. Instead, at 95 years old, she chose truth over mythology. That’s the most radical act of love for a community there is.

Julio Ricardo Varela is the founder of “The Latino Newsletter” and co-editor of “Pressing Issues from Free Press.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Fired FBI agents claim ‘improper acts of political retribution’ by Trump administration

Published

on

Fired FBI agents claim ‘improper acts of political retribution’ by Trump administration

Former FBI agents allege they were illegally fired for having worked on an investigation that led to President Donald Trump’s indictment in the 2020 election interference case.

In a new lawsuit filed Thursday in Washington, two ex-agents said their constitutional rights were violated by “improper acts of political retribution.”

The civil suitbrought by plaintiffs proceeding under pseudonyms (John Does 1 and 2), names FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the FBI and the Justice Department as defendants.

It’s the latest legal responseto the second Trump administration’s revenge campaign, which has included firing people who did their jobs probing potential crimes that happened to include the actions of the once and future president.

“Based merely on Plaintiffs’ involvement in an investigation implicating then-former President Trump initiated during the Biden Administration, Defendant Kash Patel, Defendant Pamela J. Bondi, and elected officials with whom they acted in concert perceived Plaintiffs to be politically disloyal to President Trump and therefore targeted Plaintiffs for removal,” the former agents alleged in their complaint.

They said their firings were illegal because they were based on the perception that they weren’t Trump supporters.

They’re seeking a court declaration that their rights were violated, as well as immediate reinstatement with protection from further action against them without due process. They said they were fired without evidence, notice or the opportunity for a hearing.

The government defendants will have an opportunity to respond in court.

The election interference case was one of two federal prosecutions brought against Trump. The DOJ stopped pursuing both cases after his 2024 election win, due to the department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending