In Plain Sight, Donald Trump Continues His Takeover Of The U.S. Military
WASHINGTON — The scariest moment in the second installment of President Donald Trump's America thus far is a question that was asked in the U.S. Senate and went unanswered.
Five months ago, Fox News-host-turned-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked how he would respond if his soon-to-be boss told him to shoot American protesters on American streets.
Hegseth, after dancing around the question, refused to answer that day. He refused to answer again when asked two weeks ago.
And on Thursday, he once more refused when asked yet again while appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
We were made for this moment. HuffPost will aggressively, fairly and honestly cover the Trump administration. But we need your help. .
It was, unfortunately, not an outlandish hypothetical even when Democratic senators posed the question back during Hegseth's confirmation hearing in January. Trump's first-term Pentagon chief Mark Esper, over the months that saw protests across the country following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, was asked to do exactly that. Esper refused.
Today, it is even less of a hypothetical. Hegseth, at Trump's demand, has deployed both the California National Guard (over the objection of the state's governor) and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles as a backup force for immigration officers conducting deportation raids.
If people don't understand why this is so dangerous, they might want to review what happened 55 years ago in Kent, Ohio. In early May 1970, Guard troops were sent to the state university there — in that instance, by the governor at the time — to disperse protests against President Richard Nixon's just announced expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia.
Protesters started advancing on the soldiers. Some of the soldiers panicked and fired into the crowd. Four students died and nine were injured. One of the photos from that day still serves as a searing reminder of that time.
The better part of a century later, we're likely in an even more fraught place. The American military has long maintained a nonpartisan, apolitical tradition — one that Trump is clearly trying to end. He went to West Point's graduation and gave an unabashedly political speech. He went to Fort Bragg in North Carolina earlier this month and treated it like a campaign rally, even encouraging the troops there to boo his Democratic critics. He commandeered a planned celebration of the Army's 250th anniversary and turned it into a parade for himself.
Months ago he sent troops to the southern border in a potential violation of standing federal law. What he is doing in California is all of this piece — transforming the nation's military into his military.
Trump, it seems clear, is not really trying to maintain calm and order, but rather is spoiling for a fight. If protesters get violent or provide some other provocation, no one should be surprised if soldiers do the things that soldiers are trained to do.
Which is why Hegseth's continued refusal to answer what he will do if and when Trump orders him to shoot protesters should be terrifying.
Again, this is all so outside the American experience that it's perhaps understandable that people refuse to accept what's going on right in front of our eyes, in broad daylight. Trump is bringing in the military to do things that, in America, the military has no business doing, from guarding the border to immigration enforcement far inland.
Note carefully that the order he signed when he first sent 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles mentions neither California nor limits the number to 2,000. The order is open-ended and in force across the country.
How far a jump is it from enforcing immigration law to enforcing other criminal laws? And, with both the FBI and the Department of Justice under the control of Trump-first loyalists eager to carry out his every whim, how far a jump is it from that to arresting people who, in Trump's view, pose a threat to civil order?
Any scholar of autocracies will tell you that lawyers and judges willing to stand up to a would-be autocrat is all well and good, but an even more important thing is control of the men and women with the guns. And that, thanks to 77 million Americans, is in the hands of a man who revels in his lack of regard for laws and the Constitution and has repeatedly stated his view that opposing him is tantamount to treason.
What Hegseth's multiple visits to the Capitol these past months, with multiple opportunities to answer the same question and multiple variations of the same non-answer, have made clear is that he will be the defense secretary that Trump wants, the defense secretary that Mark Esper and, before him, Jim Mattis refused to be.
All of which means that the survival of American democracy may be in the hands of career military officers — officers like Dan Caine, the Air Force general who is now Trump's chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Caine's name has been a fixture in Trump's rally speeches over the past six years, as the 'central casting' general who told Trump that his nickname was Raisin' Caine, and who then went on to promise that he could eliminate ISIS in weeks and then, in Trump's telling, quickly delivered. Given that story, it was easy to assume that Caine was a big fan of Trump and would do whatever Trump wants. This may well be what Trump assumed.
Whatever image that might have conjured, Caine presents quite differently. Soft-spoken, deferential to both Republican and Democratic members of Congress on the dais and — perhaps surprisingly — a defender of the pre-Trump ethos of keeping the military out of politics. Basically the exact opposite of the man who has sat beside him through these many hearings and behaved as if he were still on that Fox News weekend set.
When Caine was asked about Trump's speeches at West Point and then at Fort Bragg, where Trump political merchandise was being sold, Caine answered in a calming, normal, non-Trump, non-Hegseth way.
'By even my engaging in answering this question, that is making my job involved in politics,' he told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this month. 'I think the chairman and the force should stay out of politics.'
For Trump to grab control of the armed forces for his personal ends, he would need to win over career officers like Caine, who spent decades in uniform under presidents of both parties and who share the basic precept that they serve the Constitution, not any single individual.
It's possible Caine said what he did only because that's what the questioner wanted to hear and he is actually fully on board with Trump's rush to autocracy.
On the other hand, it may be that, like former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, who along with Esper thwarted Trump's attempts to use the military for his own ends in the final months of his first term, Caine and other uniformed officers will maintain an allegiance to the nation, and not Trump, and that democracy will live to fight another day.
At least we can hope.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Gabbard was in Situation Room on Iran, still key player despite Trump saying she was 'wrong' on intel
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was inside the Situation Room Saturday when the U.S. military launched successful strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a White House official confirmed to Fox News Digital Sunday morning. A White House official confirmed Gabbard was in the room Saturday and that she is a "key player" on President Donald Trump's national security team. Speculation had mounted there was a rift between Gabbard and Trump after the president told the media Gabbard was "wrong" about intelligence on Iran back in March when she testified before the Senate that the nation was not actively building a nuclear weapon. Photos of the Situation Room released Saturday evening did not show Gabbard present alongside Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other administration officials. The photos, however, did not include wide shots showing the entire room or each individual present, with the White House confirming the intelligence chief was present. Trump and Gabbard appeared at odds earlier in June, when the president was asked about Gabbard's testimony before the Senate in March, when she reported intelligence showed Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. Trump told the media June 16 he did not "care" what Gabbard had to say in previous testimony, arguing he believed Iran was close to building a nuke. "You've always said that you don't believe Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon," a reporter asked Trump while aboard Air Force One on June 16. "But how close do you personally think that they were to getting one?" "Very close," Trump responded. Then again Friday, Trump said Gabbard was "wrong" after she reported that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. "My intelligence community is wrong," Trump said when asked about the intelligence community previously reporting that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. When Gabbard appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee in March, she delivered a statement on behalf of the intelligence community that included testimony that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. "Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data," Gabbard told the committee March 26. The intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003," she said. She did add that "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons." "Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorist actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance," she warned. However, as critics picked apart Gabbard's past comments, the White House stressed to Fox Digital that Gabbard and Trump were closely aligned on Iran. A White House official told Fox News Digital on Tuesday afternoon that Trump and Gabbard are closely aligned and that the distinction being raised between Gabbard's March testimony and Trump's remarks that Iran is "very close" to getting a nuclear weapon is one without a difference. The official noted that Gabbard had underscored in her March testimony that Iran had the resources to potentially build a nuclear weapon. Her March testimony reflected intelligence she had received that Iran was not building a weapon at the time but that the country could do so based on the resources it amassed for such an endeavor. Gabbard took to social media and blasted the media for "intentionally" taking her March testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee "out of context." "The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division," Gabbard said in a Friday post on X, accompanied by a video clip of her March testimony to Congress. "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly," she wrote. "President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." Trump announced in a Saturday evening Truth Social post that the U.S. military had carried out strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran, obliterating them. Trump held an address to the nation later Saturday night, describing the strikes as wildly successful and backing Iran into a corner to make a peace deal. "A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan," Trump said from the White House on Saturday evening. "Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number-one state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success." "For 40 years, Iran has been saying, 'Death to America. Death to Israel.' They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs," Trump continued. "That was their specialty. We lost over a thousand people, and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular." Fox News Digital reached out to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for any additional comment on the Sunday strikes, but did not immediately receive a reply.
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tom Homan reveals the 'biggest national security vulnerability' after US strikes Iran
Border czar Tom Homan voiced concern over the presence of Iranian nationalists and other unaccounted illegal immigrants after the United States launched an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday night. Homan revealed what he feels is the 'biggest national security' vulnerability the U.S. currently has amid the conflict in the Middle East during an appearance on "Sunday Morning Futures" with anchor Maria Bartiromo. TOM HOMAN: I've said in the last four years, my biggest concern was this open border. It was the biggest national security vulnerability this country has ever seen. So, I pulled numbers this morning, just from a CBP under Joe Biden — there were 1,272 nationalists from Iran released in the country between OFO and the border patrol. You compare that the Trump administration is zero, right? Zero releases. And right now, because of President Trump's leadership, we have the most secure border in my lifetime, the most secure border in the history of this nation. So we have a secure border, so that was President Trump's big win in securing this nation. We're not releasing people in this country, especially when there are aliens that aren't crossing the border undetected. But under Joe Biden, we had over 10 million people cross that border. But my biggest concern from day one, beyond the fentanyl, beyond the sex trafficking women and children, were the two million known 'gotaways' — over two million people crossed that border. We don't know who they are, where they came from, because they got away because border patrol is so overwhelmed with the humanitarian crisis that Biden created. Over two million people crossed the border and got away. That is my biggest concern. And that's what created the biggest national security vulnerability this country's ever seen. The U.S. Department of State raised warning levels for U.S. citizens traveling to countries across the Middle East on Sunday. The changes come after President Donald Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday. Affected countries include Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The measures are most severe in Lebanon, where the state department has ordered the departure of family members and all non-emergency government personnel from the nation due to the heightened security situation. The state department increased its warning levels for Americans in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but there is no departure order. Meanwhile, Jordan remains at a level two advisory, calling for Americans in the country to exercise special caution. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said President Trump was "fully committed" to engaging in peace talks with Iran before ordering strikes on the country's nuclear facilities on Sunday. Hegseth made the statement while speaking to reporters on Sunday morning, asked if there was a "particular moment" when Trump decided the airstrikes were necessary. "I would just say having the opportunity to witness his leadership, he was fully committed to the peace process, wanted a negotiated outcome, gave Iran every single opportunity and, unfortunately, was met by stonewalling, which is why he gave them plenty of time to continue to come to the table and give up enrichment, give up the nuclear program," Hegseth said. "But there was... I won't say the particular moment... there was certainly a moment in time where he realized that it had to be a certain action taken in order to minimize the threat to us in our troops," he added.
CNN
34 minutes ago
- CNN
Dem. Senator Adam Schiff says 'we simply don't know' if US is safer after Iran strikes
Democratic Senator Adam Schiff speaks to Kasie Hunt about the congressional response to President Trump's order to strike Iran.
