
Analysis: The thing Trump's generals feared about him could now be arriving
Trump's mobilization of the military two months ago in Los Angeles seemed to fit the latter category. Maybe Trump just wants to look like he's getting tough on crime in DC.
But with Trump's now-repeated and historically extraordinary deployment of the Guard – and his comments about bringing this approach to other cities – he's doing what he often does: gradually pushing the envelope and getting ever closer to what seems to be his desired outcome, which is a fuller militarization of the homeland.
That might sound overwrought to some. But it's worth emphasizing that this is precisely the outcome that multiple top generals and military officials who served in Trump's first term worried about – and warned about.
For years, they've cast Trump's desire to dispatch the military on US soil as one of his most troubling tendencies – and even case-in-point evidence of his authoritarianism.
This issue was raised in one form or another by two Trump defense secretaries (Jim Mattis and Mark Esper), his top general (Mark Milley) and his chief of staff (John Kelly, also a retired general). All of them have cast this as a line that is not to be crossed and indicated they feared Trump would indeed cross it. Some even recalled multiple instances when Trump tried to do so or suggested it.
The flashpoint for many of their comments was the scene in June 2020 when federal law enforcement cleared Lafayette Square near the White Houe of racial-justice protesters. They did so right before Trump strolled through for a photo-op featuring both Milley and Esper. (Both later expressed regret for participating.)
Mattis responded with a blistering – and unusual, for him – statement that warned of what the scene portended.
'Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, DC, sets up a conflict — a false conflict — between the military and civilian society,' he said. 'It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part.'
Mattis said the military should be used on US soil 'only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors.'
(Notably, Trump's deployments of the military this summer – in Los Angeles and DC – came without requests from the governor and mayor, respectively.)
Esper has described a scene in which Trump asked him and Milley why the protesters couldn't simply be shot 'in the legs or something.' And in his 2022 book, he said a large part of his job that summer was 'making sure to blunt or redirect any efforts that could politicize the military, misuse the force, or undermine the nation's security.'
In a CNN interview in October, Esper even invoked the Kent State massacre, where the National Guard killed four Vietnam War protesters.
'We don't want to go back to that,' Esper said.
Kelly likewise has said Trump had to be told repeatedly why he shouldn't use the military against American citizens, dating back to his first year in office. But he said Trump would just keep pressing the issue.
'And I think this issue of using the military on — to go after — American citizens is one of those things I think is a very, very bad thing — even to say it for political purposes to get elected — I think it's a very, very bad thing, let alone actually doing it,' Kelly told the New York Times last year.
In the same interview, Kelly mentioned Trump's penchant for this while saying he met the definition of a fascist.
That's a description Milley, too, has applied to Trump. And at one point, he reportedly so feared Trump's willingness to misuse the military that he worried Trump might launch a coup after the 2020 election. (Trump denied ever considering such a thing.)
In their 2021 book, 'I Alone Can Fix it,' Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker reported that Milley believed Trump was stoking unrest with his false claims about voter fraud in possible hope of being able to call in the military. (Rucker is now senior vice president for editorial strategy and news at CNN.)
'This is a Reichstag moment,' Milley reportedly told aides, recalling the episode the Nazis used as a pretext to cripple the opposition and consolidate power.
Milley didn't confirm the account in the book, but a defense official close to him suggested to CNN in 2021 that Milley was indeed quite concerned about Trump mobilizing the military for nefarious purposes.
'He's not going to sit in silence while people try to use the military against Americans,' the official said.
Trump's time in politics has featured no shortage of former administration officials who warn in pretty stark terms about his tendencies.
But what's particularly notable here is the positions these men held. These are precisely the kinds of people who would be most aware of Trump's desire to misuse the military.
And the fact that they've suggested he's pushed for these things privately indicates it isn't just bluster when Trump talks openly about calling in active duty military in addition to the National Guard in DC, as he did Monday.
That doesn't mean all of that will come to pass. The guardrails have held before, even as they've clearly receded in his second term. And Trump's legal authorities are more limited outside DC.
But the president appears more and more intent on pressing the issue. And that makes the comments of these four men more relevant than ever.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Newsom is ready to redraw California's maps. Here's an overview of where we stand
In less than three months, California voters may be tasked with determining whether the state moves forward with a mid-decade redistricting, a move proponents say is combating Texas Republican lawmakers' efforts to secure more party seats in the 2026 midterms as the nation teeters on a gerrymander war. Gov. Gavin Newsom reiterated his plans in a letter to President Donald Trump on Monday, Aug. 11, in which he requested that the president call on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the leaders of other red states to cease their efforts. 'If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,' Newsom said. 'But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same.' The letter comes the same week state Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said he anticipated the proposed maps would be released after lawmakers were pressed about when the public would see them. 'Once these maps are released, voters will have the opportunity to digest these maps, review them for weeks and months leading to this election,' Rivas said during a press conference on Aug. 8. For weeks, Newsom and California Democratic lawmakers have been floating plans for a mid-decade redistricting. It's in response to Trump and White House officials who've urged Texas Republican leaders to redraw voting maps to gain five new Republican-friendly seats to the U.S. House of Representatives, USA TODAY reported. In California, congressional district maps are drawn by the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission — not legislators — which was created when voters passed the Voters First Act in 2008. Here's the latest on redistricting efforts in California, based on Newsom and other lawmakers' recent public comments, and what to know moving forward. What is Newsom proposing? Here's what you should know Newsom and California lawmakers plan to call for a special election in the first week of November, in which voters will determine whether California will move forward with redistricting — a move that would pick up five Democratic seats. Lawmakers have until Aug. 22 to get this measure on the ballot, Newsom said during a press conference on Aug. 8. The assembly and state senate have adjourned until Aug. 18. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat whose district includes San Benito County and parts of other central coast counties, said that leaders found that they could create a map for California that 'eliminated five Republican districts' yet 'was true to the Voting Rights Act' following Texas's efforts during the Aug. 8 press conference. The California governor has previously described the proposal being advanced with the legislature as having a 'trigger.' If Texas moves forward with its mid-decade redistricting, then California would act. Recently, many Democratic Texas representatives have left the state to stall redistricting efforts. 'We tried to play by a higher set of standards and rules with our independent redistricting, and we believe in that, and we are not talking about eliminating that commission,' Newsom said on Aug. 8. 'We are talking about emergency measures to respond to what's happening in Texas and we will nullify what happens in Texas. We will pick up five seats with the consent of the people.' Newsom has described the mid-decade redistricting as occurring 'just for congressional maps in '26, '28 and '30.' California has 52 congressional districts, nine of which are currently represented by Republican congressmen: Doug LaMalfa, 1st Congressional District of California Kevin Kiley, 3rd Congressional District of California Tom McClintock, 5th Congressional District of California Vince Fong, 20th Congressional District of California David Valadao, 22nd Congressional District of California Jay Obernolte, 23rd Congressional District of California Young Kim, 40th Congressional District of California Ken Calvert, 41st Congressional District of California Darrell Issa, 48th Congressional District of California These lawmakers said in a joint statement in late July that they'd 'fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections.' 'The Commission received feedback from tens of thousands of Californians as to their communities of interest, which shaped the current set of congressional districts,' they said. 'Districts that represent the local communities that they live in, rather than the whims of one political party. A partisan political gerrymander is NOT what the voters of California want, as they clearly stated when they passed the VOTERS FIRST Act and participated in the Citizens Redistricting Commission process.' Who does redistricting in California? The California Citizens Redistricting Commission, comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four people not affiliated with either party, redraws the boundaries of the state's congressional, state senate, state assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts. The redrawing of districts comes after every decennial U.S. Census so that the districts 'correctly reflect the state's population,' according to the commission. With the commission created through the Voters First Act, redistricting was removed from legislators' hands. When asked to comment on lawmakers' plans to redistrict and whether they'd pursue any efforts to defend the current congressional maps, the commission said in an email to the Desert Sun that it 'has no response at this time.' Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College and a California Citizens Redistricting Commission commissioner, told the Desert Sun that among what sets the commission apart is 'the extreme transparency that we use.' Sadhwani described the ways in which maps could be drawn, whether it be a single person behind the scenes or writing code for a computer to draw lines based on a set of criteria. 'We collected nearly 40,000 pieces of public testimony from across the state in which people called in to share with us where their community lies, what ties their communities together and the rationale for why their community ought to be in a district together,' Sadhwani said, explaining that is the basis of their line drawing. But whether a successful mid-decade redistricting sets up a future in which the commission could be weakened by lawmakers— or even more drastically, dismantled — Sadhwani said: 'I think that would come down to how the ballot measure is written. My understanding is what Gov. Newsom has been proposing is that this would be a one-time immediate action and would keep the commission process for 2031.' Sadhwani added, 'If we can take the governor at his word, then it would not diminish the power of the commission in general; it would just be a one-time stepping out of the process.' When would we vote on redistricting in California? Special election may be called Newsom said on Aug. 4 that the goal is to get this proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot, which coincides with other municipal elections. 'Counties have 30 days after Election Day to certify their election results,' the California Secretary of State's Office press team said in an email to the Desert Sun. 'The Secretary of State will certify the official Statement of Vote 38 days after the election.' By the end of this year, Californians will generally know whether the 2026 midterms will be shaped by new maps or not. But in the weeks leading up to a possible special election, county officials will be obtaining places for voting to occur, as well as to count the votes, said Jim Patrick, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State, in an email. 'They'll hire and train staff to work before, during, and after the election,' Patrick said. 'And they'll make sure they have the materials (primarily envelopes and ballots) they need to run an election.' Shaun Bowler, a professor of political science at UC Riverside, said in an email to the Desert Sun that 'pretty much any map of seats' is subject to legal challenge. 'This will be no different,' he said. This effort is unusual because it's a response to events happening in other states, Bowler said. Rather than it being a step to counter GOP efforts in California, it's an attempt to offset what lawmakers are trying in Texas, the UC Riverside professor said. He shared what he thought were wider implications for Congress. Should redistricting in Texas ultimately help keep Republican control of Congress, then anything they pass is 'going to be suspect and open to criticism and complaint' because it wouldn't reflect the will of voters, Bowler said. When asked whether leaders have a backup plan should people vote against this effort, Newsom said voters will approve it. 'I think the voters understand what's at stake,' he said. Paris Barraza is a trending reporter covering California news at The Desert Sun. Reach her at pbarraza@ This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: California redistricting: Here's Newsom's plan and what happens next Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Trump holds talks with Zelenskyy, EU leaders ahead of Putin summit
President Donald Trump Wednesday held tense talks with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders ahead of his crucial Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin on Friday. With nerves running high, Zelenskyy said the talks went well and Trump agreed that he hoped the summit with the Russian leader could lead to an immediate ceasefire. The European allies, led by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Ukraine fear Trump will get duped by Putin into making major concessions without their agreement. 'Putin doesn't want peace, he wants to occupy Ukraine,' Zelenskyy said at a news conference after the talks with Trump. Trump has said he wants to see whether Putin is serious about ending the war, now in its fourth year, and described the summit as 'a feeling-out meeting' where he can assess the Russian leader's intentions. He pushed back against armchair critics who underestimate his deal-making prowess and insists he won't be afraid to walk away from the talks if he believes Putin isn't serious. 'If I got Moscow and Leningrad free, as part of the deal with Russia, (they) would say that I made a bad deal,' Trump wrote on his social media site. Trump and Putin will meet on Friday at a U.S. Air Force base in Anchorage, Alaska. It's the first face-to-face meeting between Putin and an American president since he launched the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Trump already unnerved allies in Europe in recent months by making significant unilateral concessions to Putin, like agreeing that Ukraine should never join NATO and would need to give up some lands that Russia has seized in its invasion, along with the disputed Crimea region that the Kremlin seized in 2014. Putin has stubbornly refused to respond in kind and has snubbed Trump's demands for a ceasefire. It's unclear why Trump believes the Russian leader might be ready change course now. European allies have pushed for Ukraine's involvement in any peace talks, fearful that discussions that exclude Kyiv could otherwise favor Moscow. Trump has said that if Friday's summit is a success, it could be followed by a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy or a three-way meeting with him. Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine have made advances in recent days around the city of Pokrovsk in the eastern Donetsk region that Putin claims for Russia. Losing the town would hand Russia an important victory ahead of the summit and could complicate Ukrainian efforts to hold the rest of the province.

Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
‘Severe consequences': Trump warns Putin ahead of Alaska summit
President Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that Russia would face 'very severe consequences' if he determines during Friday's summit with Vladimir Putin that the Russian leader is still not serious about ending the war with Ukraine. Trump, who did not specify what those consequences might be, has been reluctant to increase economic sanctions or tariffs on Russia despite his mounting frustration with Putin's intensifying attacks on Ukrainian cities, civilians and indifference to peace talks. Lowering expectations that the sit-down with Putin in Alaska would yield a breakthrough, Trump said that he's hopeful this initial meeting could lead to another that includes Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and, potentially, Trump. 'First, I'll find out where we are,' Trump said. 'If the first [meeting] goes okay, we'll have a quick second one. I would like to do it almost immediately.' But, the president cautioned, he won't pursue a trilateral meeting if he doesn't think Putin is acting in good faith. 'There may be no second meeting because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we are not going to have a second meeting,' Trump said. Trump's comments came during an appearance at the Kennedy Center and shortly after an hour-long call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, in preparation for Friday's summit. Trump described the call as 'very good,' and several European leaders were quick to issue statements about the call Wednesday morning to underscore their alignment. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Trump 'largely shares' Europe's position on peace talks, and French President Emmanuel Macron stated that Trump is indeed pushing for a ceasefire, a top priority for Zelenskyy and NATO. Putin's stubborn refusal to entertain Trump's diplomatic entreaties so far has pushed the president into closer alignment with NATO allies and even Zelenskyy, who he dressed down in the Oval Office less than six months ago. Friday's sit-down with Putin, who many analysts believe is likely to try to repair his personal relationship with Trump in a private meeting while convincing him that Ukraine shares the blame for the prolonged conflict, will put the president's shifting convictions to a serious test. Even as he sought to put the onus on Putin to demonstrate new seriousness about ending the war, Trump downplayed expectations about his own ability to persuade the Russian president to do so. When asked whether he could convince Putin to 'stop targeting civilians in Ukraine,' he demurred. 'I guess the answer to that is probably no,' Trump said.