The Dictatorship
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
Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.
In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.
Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.
In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”
A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.
Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.
Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.
In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.
It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.
On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.
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.
The Dictatorship
The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring
About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.
All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.
The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.
The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
The Times summarized the broader context nicely:
Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.
Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.
In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.
The article added:
Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.
Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.
This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.
* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”
* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.
* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.
* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.
* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.
* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?









