The Dictatorship

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

Published

2 years 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

Court denies request to immediately block DOJ ‘slush fund’

Published

11 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Court denies request to immediately block DOJ ‘slush fund’

Jun. 10, 2026, 6:14 PM EDT

A federal judge in Washington has denied a bid Wednesday brought by a watchdog group to immediately block the Justice Department’s “anti-weaponization” fund, for now choosing to trust the department’s assertions that it is not moving forward with the fund.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled immediately, denying Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked the Department of Justice from taking steps to create the fund.

Throughout the 30-minute hearing, the DOJ reiterated that the administration was not moving forward with the nearly $1.8 billion fund, which seeks to compensate individuals who allege they have been politically targeted or victimized by the DOJ.

Andrew Block, the only lawyer present for the government, repeatedly cited Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2 congressional testimonyin which he said the administration was “not moving forward” with plans to create the fund.

Leon indicated he agreed with the DOJ’s position that the case appeared to be moot, saying he was not persuaded there was an issue for the court to decide regarding the creation of the fund. He issued a stern warning to the DOJ, saying, “Don’t play possum with this court!” — meaning he does not want to be deceived.

The plaintiffs argued Blanche’s testimony did not amount to an official cancellation. Nikhel Sus, CREW’s attorney, said Blanche “refused to memorialize that rescission,” or in other words, put it in writing. Sus said that was “highly unusual.” Leon responded, “This whole case is highly unusual to say the least.”

Leon asked the government twice why they would not just rescind the order that established the fund. Block responded, “I don’t know,” and pointed again to Blanche’s public statements about the fund’s future.

Both Leon and Sus raised the issue of Trump’s continued public defense of the fund. “It can still be an important issue and also not moving forward,” Block said. “That isn’t a direction to move forward with the fund.”

Although Leon rejected CREW’s bid for an immediate block, he indicated he is still considering its request for a longer-term block against the fund.

A block order from a separate federal judge in Virginia remains in effect until at least Friday.

Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Trump is accelerating our Social Security insolvency crisis

Published

11 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Jun. 10, 2026, 5:50 PM EDT

The date when Social Security’s trust fund is expected to run out of money just got bumped up. The fund is now projected to empty in 2032according to a new report released by Social Security’s trustees.

The new depletion date isn’t an earth-shaking change — it’s only a quarter earlier than the estimate in last year’s report. But it illustrates how President Donald Trump’s policies are degrading a program he promised to never jeopardize — and accelerating an approaching crisis in how our government will assist the elderly and disabled.

The report names three factors that contributed to the earlier insolvency date. One is a declining fertility rate, but the other two drivers can be traced back to Trump: a drop in immigration into the country, and the “substantial effect” of the tax policies in the One Big Beautiful Bill he signed last summer.

Trump’s acceleration of the program’s insolvency comes atop his assaults on the program’s administrative capacities.

Reduced immigration during Trump’s second term — especially when coupled with a declining fertility rate — strains Social Security because the program is funded through payroll taxes. Those come out of people’s paychecks, and fewer workers supporting an aging population means the program receives less revenue. Indeed, Social Security already has been tapping its trust fund for the better part of the past two decades because the program’s costs have exceeded its cash income. And as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out last yearlast year’s tax cuts were a boon to the rich but a bust for the solvency of the Social Security trust fund.

To be clear, if the fund is depleted, Social Security won’t go belly up. Benefits will continue to be paid out, but there will be a large drop in the amount. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the “average monthly cut would total $500, which is more than what the average retired household spends on groceries each month.”

That would be a huge blow to the budgets of many older Americans. Social Security is a major source of income for most retirees, and roughly 40% of beneficiaries over the age of 65 rely on it for most of their income. And it would mark the destabilization of the sole source of retirement security for most Americans that is supposed to be insulated from ups and downs — unlike 401K plans. As the CBPP has pointed outSocial Security is “most workers’ only source of guaranteed retirement income that is not subject to investment risk or financial market fluctuations.”

Trump’s acceleration of the program’s insolvency comes atop his assaults on the program’s administrative capacities. His cuts to the Social Security Administration have left offices understaffedincreased wait timesand reduced quality of customer service.

Ultimately, Trump is exacerbating a colossal social safety net problem that predates him, and the trust fund will hit dire straits after he has left office. Democrats need to have clear plans for shoring up the program and making it robust for the future — which will require not being sheepish about taxes as a tool for renewing the social contract. And when Republicans try to claim that they, too, are champions of Social Security, all Democrats need to do is point to the truth.

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

The Dictatorship

Wednesday’s Mini-Report, 6.10.26

Published

11 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The latest from Northern Ireland: “The family of a man who lost an eye in a knife attack appealed for calm on Wednesday after the incident triggered a wave of anti-immigrant violence in Belfast overnight, with masked men burning families out of their homes and torching vehicles. The appeal ‌came as a Sudanese man appeared in court charged with attempted murder and as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and politicians in Northern Ireland condemned the violence by ‘masked thugs’ that had targeted ethnic minorities.”

* In related news: “The British government hit out at X owner Elon Musk Wednesday, accusing him of whipping up tensions online ahead of disorder in Belfast.”

* The tenuous state of a dubious ceasefire: “Trump said the U.S. is going to hit Iran ‘hard’ today when pressed by reporters in the Oval Office about his statement earlier that Tehran will ‘pay the price’ for taking ‘too long’ to reach a peace agreement. ‘Well, we’re going to be attacking them and attacking them very hard, resuming bombing,’ he said.”

* The latest casualty figures from Lebanon: “Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon has killed at least 3,666 people, including 131 healthcare workers, and injured more than 11,300 since the U.S. and Israel began their war with Iran in late February, the Lebanese health ministry reported yesterday.”

* The changing nature of modern warfare: “Ukraine is wreaking havoc on unarmored trucks and trains in the battlefield’s rear, using drones with upgraded engines and batteries, integrated Starlink communication systems and new artificial-intelligence capabilities. The ramped-up attacks are causing fuel shortages, complicating troop rotations and reducing Russian military activity on the front.”

* This seems like a reasonable request: “Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee demanded Wednesday that Bill Pulte, President Donald Trump’s controversial pick for acting director of national intelligence, submit to a full security check before assuming the post, including an examination of his financial holdings and foreign contacts.”

* Some market trends can’t be stopped despite the White House’s best efforts: “Even as President Donald Trump boosts coal over clean energy, solar power is hitting new milestones in the U.S. and remains the leading source of new power. Data released Wednesday by global energy think tank Ember, along with a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie, show the continued growth of solar and decline of coal in the United States despite federal policy. In May, for the first time, solar supplied more of the nation’s electricity than coal, or 12.8%, Ember said.”

* A bizarre schedule for a nonemergency vanity project: “Federal officials are laying more groundwork to begin construction on President Donald Trump’s planned 250-foot-tall triumphal arch, sharing additional documents that detail the project’s scope and an aggressive timetable for potentially completing work before Trump’s term ends. According to National Park Service documents posted this month, the administration envisions 20 hours per day of construction on the arch, year-round, in hopes of completing the project within two to three years.”

See you tomorrow.

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.”