The Dictatorship

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

Published

1 year ago

November 18, 2024

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.

The Dictatorship

FSU shooting victim’s family files federal lawsuit against OpenAI

Published

17 hours ago

May 13, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

FSU shooting victim’s family files federal lawsuit against OpenAI

May. 12, 2026, 6:16 PM EDT

Happy Tuesday! Here’s your Tuesday Tech Dropthe past week’s top stories from the intersection of politics and technology.

OpenAI sued over FSU shooting

The family of a victim killed in a shooting at Florida State University last year is suing OpenAIalleging the shooter was inspired and advised by its chatbot, ChatGPT, on how to maximize damage.

The federal lawsuitfiled in Florida, claims ChatGPT informed the alleged shooter on how to operate certain guns and when FSU’s campus would be busiest. According to the suit, ChatGPT responded to a query about how to gain the most attention by saying in part:

Context also matters — fewer victims can still lead to national coverage if it happens at an elementary school or major college, if the shooter is a student or staff member, or if there’s something culturally or politically charged (for example, racial motives, a manifesto, or mental-health implications).

OpenAI declined responsibility, BLN reported:

OpenAI said that while the FSU shooting was a “tragedy,” ChatGPT is “not responsible.”

“In this case, ChatGPT provided factual responses to questions with information that could be found broadly across public sources on the internet, and it did not encourage or promote illegal or harmful activity,” said OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri. “We work continuously to strengthen our safeguards to detect harmful intent, limit misuse, and respond appropriately when safety risks arise.”

As BLN noted, this litigation adds to a growing list of lawsuits accusing ChatGPT of fueling harmful behavior. And, to be clear, this issue isn’t unique to OpenAI: There have been numerous incidents — such as xAI’s Grok being used to produce nonconsensual sexual imagesincluding ones depicting children — that suggest the public ought to remain skeptical of chatbots and their effect on society.

France’s X investigation

Speaking of Elon Musk’s Grok, French investigators have escalated their probe — over the chatbot’s dissemination of Holocaust denials and nonconsensual deepfakes — to a criminal investigation. Musk has called the investigation a political attack, without providing evidence. According to CNBC, the escalation comes after Musk declined to appear for questioning. Last month, President Donald Trump’s Justice Department officially refused to assist French investigators in getting Musk to comply.

Judge slams DOGE’s humanities cuts

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s cuts to the National Endowment for the Humanities, calling the cuts discriminatory. The judge also rebuked employees at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency for trying to blame ChatGPT, which they used while trying to decide which programs to slash.

Canvas hack underscores cybersecurity cuts

I wrote about the recent ransomware attack on Canvas, an educational app used by thousands of K-12 schools and universities across the country, and how the debilitating hack spotlights the danger in the Trump administration’s gutting of cybersecurity programs.

A new ICE-monitoring app emerges

The developers behind Tucson Migra Map, which allows users to track U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity, explained to The Associated Press why they believe their platform is positioned to avoid the fate of other ICE-tracking apps that have been taken offline amid pressure from the Trump administration.

Texas sues Netflix

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxtonwho is running for the U.S. Senate, has filed a lawsuit in his official capacity against Netflix, accusing the streaming platform of “spying” on users, collecting data without consent and deploying features designed to make the platform addictive. A Netflix spokesperson said in a statement that the lawsuit “lacks merit and is based on inaccurate and distorted information.”

Trump Mobile drives buyers mad

MS NOW’s Ari Melber delivered a great segment spotlighting customers who ordered Trump-branded mobile phones feeling “duped” and “angry” after not receiving anything for more than a year. He explained why a recent update to the preorder terms and conditions means the phones may never arrive.

Read my colleague Allison Detzel’s write-up of the segment — and watch the segment in full — at MS NOW.

Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.

The Dictatorship

Trump is usually immune to political gaffes. This slip-up is different.

Published

17 hours ago

May 13, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump is usually immune to political gaffes. This slip-up is different.

May. 12, 2026, 6:00 PM EDT

In his decade in national politics, Donald Trump has transformed the meaning of the political gaffe. As a campaigner and as president, he has demonstrated an uncanny ability to bulldoze over controversies stemming from embarrassing, tone deaf or outright offensive remarks. But it’s genuinely hard to see how a tin-eared remark he made Tuesday won’t haunt him.

Before leaving for his trip to ChinaTrump took questions from the press on the White House lawn. About 10 minutes into his appearance, a reporter asked“When you’re negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are Americans’ financial situations motivating you to make a deal?”

Without hesitation, Trump replied, “Not even a little bit.”

He continued: “The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran — they can’t have a nuclear weapon. I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.”

I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody.

Democrats have just received the ideal video clip for midterm messaging.

Trump’s favored escape hatch — passing off an off-color or foolish remark as a joke — is not available here. In clips of his remarks, which immediately spread like wildfire on social media, Trump speaks emphatically, and his tone makes it clear that he’s speaking with clear and serious intention.

President Trump said he doesn’t think about Americans’ financial situations as he negotiates with Iran, “not even a little bit,” as he took questions from reporters before leaving for China.

“The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran, they can’t have a nuclear… pic.twitter.com/Yb2ErKl8t2

— CBS News (@CBSNews) May 12, 2026

Even during an era in which Trump has raised the bar for impropriety and scandal unthinkably high, there’s a reason this blunder has the juice in a way most of Trump’s remarks don’t: He has committed a gigantic Kinsley gaffe. That’s a reference to former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley’s definition of a gaffe as “when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

The truth, in this case, is that Trump obviously doesn’t care about ordinary Americans’ financial well-being. It’s sticky not just because he said it, but because he has long been acting like it.

The war with Iran caused an entirely predictable oil shock in the Strait of Hormuz, and in turn, an entirely predictable blow to Americans’ wallets. Every serious energy and security observer of the region knew that this was a likely effect of such a conflict. But Trump went ahead anyway because he was so fixated on claiming another regime change that he didn’t stop for a moment to think about the repercussions.

This accidental truth-telling by Trump underscores how much his second term is politically fraudulent. He largely won the White House again because of lingering resentment over inflation during the Biden administration and rosy memories of Trump’s economic performance, alongside his promises of “no new wars.” His campaign ran ads proclaiming “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you.” Now he’s admitting — both in word and deed — that all that was a lie, and that his top priority is an unpopular project he was never elected to carry out.

My belief — and hope — is that this is the kind of clip that will have potency not only with Democrats, but also independents and soft Trump voters who are already souring on Trump due to the war in Iran and high costs of living. It’s the kind of thing that Trump can be hammered with not just by the Democratic Party, but also the isolationist, Tucker Carlson-aligned wing of the GOP.

While Trump flails in negotiations with an increasingly resolute Iran, he obsesses over a $1 billion White House ballroom project and continues to use his presidency to enrich himself and his family.I don’t think about anybody. The only part Trump is missing is “but myself.” But I’m increasingly confident that most voters can fill in the blanks.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.

The Dictatorship

Patel clashes with lawmakers over excessive drinking allegations

Published

17 hours ago

May 13, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Patel clashes with lawmakers over excessive drinking allegations

May. 12, 2026, 5:38 PM EDT

Democratic lawmakers at a Justice Department budget hearing Tuesday blasted FBI Director Kash Patel about his behavior, as well as fresh reports about the Trump administration’s investigations into internal leaks and the president’s enemies.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., began the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing by condemning the firing of FBI agents and accusing Patel of “weaponizing” the agency to seek political revenge on behalf of Trump, particularly against journalists “who write stories that you don’t like.”

Van Hollen called reports of”https://www.ms.now/news/fbi-chief-shown-in-raucous-locker-room-celebration-during-olympics-trip”>Patel’s misconductspecifically his drunken behaviorwhich he has denied, “extremely alarming.”

“If true, they demonstrate a gross dereliction of your duty and a betrayal of public trust,” Van Hollen said.

In a loud exchange, Patel then accused Van Hollen of “drinking margaritas with felons,” alluding to a photo Van Hollen has said was staged when he went to El Salvador to visit Kilmar Abrego Garciaa Maryland man who was illegally deported.

“You drink during the day, that’s you,” Patel said.

Asked by Van Hollen if he would take a test to determine whether he has a drinking problem, Patel agreed to do it alongside him.

“I’ll take any test you’re willing to take,” Patel said.

In his opening remarks, Patel touted successes under his leadership and tried to frame Van Hollen’s comments as an attack on the bureau.

“This FBI is doing a historic level of crime reduction across the country. I’m proud to lead it,” Patel said. “And if you want to cite media reporting to discredit the men and women of the FBI, go right ahead. The target’s right here. The mission’s never been more successful.”

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., questioned Patel about his trip to the Winter Olympics in Milan, Italy, where he was captured on video chugging beer with the U.S. men’s hockey team in a locker room. Coons asked how much the trip cost and how it furthered the FBI’s mission.

Patel did not offer a number but said that there were no major security issues involving American citizens at the Games, and that it is standard practice for the FBI and other federal agencies to work security at sporting events such as the Olympics, World Cup, F1 races and the Super Bowl.

Patel said the trip coincided with a mission to return to the U.S. a top Chinese cyber criminal who at the time was housed in Italian custody.

Patel’s appearance before the committee, alongside the heads of the DEA and the ATF, comes on the heels of new reports that the Justice Department subpoenaed journalists covering the Iran war to uncover their sources at the direction of President Donald Trump, according to CNN and The Wall Street Journal.

Trump indirectly instructed acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to investigate the reporters by placing a sticky note with the word “treason” written on it atop a stack of printed news articles, officials familiar with the matter told the news outlets.

After Blanche received the stack of articles, the DOJ issued several subpoenas, according to the reports. The department’s National Security Division was already planning to look into some of the stories’ sources, but Trump’s concern expedited the effort, one official told BLN.

The DOJ did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment on the reports. A spokesperson for the department told the Journal that “in all circumstances, the Department of Justice follows the facts and applies the law to identify those committing crimes against the United States.”

Separately, a person directly familiar with the matter confirmed to MS NOW that FBI agents have been conducting voluntary interviews of CIA officers as part of the investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan over his role in the investigation that concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections. Last month, the DOJ began withdrawing several subpoenas it had issued in the criminal probe of Brennan, opting instead for the voluntary interviews.

MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian and Carol Leonnig contributed to this report.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.