The Pentagon anticipates major upheaval once President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House, amid fears that the once and future commander in chief will follow through on vows to deploy the military domestically against American citizens, demand fealty from key leaders and attempt to remake the nonpartisan institution into one explicitly loyal to him.
The trepidation harks back to Trump’s first term, when he smashed norms and frequently clashed with senior Pentagon leaders — including several of his own political appointees. He has shown no signs of altering course this time around, stating throughout his campaign an intent to use military force against the “enemy from within,” to fire any military officer associated with the chaotic evacuation from Afghanistan after he left office in 2021, and to reverse what he and his supporters have denounced as “woke” decisions by the Biden administration that include
renaming several Army bases that had honored Confederates.
“The greatest danger the military faces” under a second Trump presidency is a “rapid erosion of its professionalism, which would undermine its status and respect from the American people,” said Richard Kohn, a professor and military historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Mr. Trump does not have a real understanding of civil-military relations, or the importance of a nonpartisan, nonpolitical military.”
Several senior figures in Trump’s first administration later issued public warnings about his authoritarian impulses. Among them were his former defense secretary Mark T. Esper; retired Gen. Mark A. Milley, his former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and his former White House chief of staff John Kelly, also a retired general. Jim Mattis, the retired general who was Trump’s first defense secretary, said little publicly during the election but castigated Trump in an essay in June 2020, calling him “the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people.”
While in office, each served as a bulwark against Trump’s darkest impulses and subsequently
voiced grave concerns that he would violate the Constitution by issuing unlawful orders to the military.
The impulsive, antiestablishment nature of his presidency created uproar, including when he intervened in the criminal cases of
U.S. troops convicted of war crimes, sought retribution
against retired generals who criticized him and abruptly called for a
ban on transgender service members but had no plan in place. Such moves often caught Pentagon officials flat-footed and left them scrambling to discern what exactly Trump wanted and whether he would change his mind.
As president, Trump used his personal social media to broadcast major U.S. troop movements overseas, including a
withdrawal from northern Syria that caused chaos for partner forces there, and personnel reductions in Afghanistan while U.S. officials were simultaneously negotiating a departure with the Taliban. Doing so was seen by commanders as unconventional at best.
Earlier this year retired Gen. Austin “Scott” Miller, who oversaw U.S. forces in Afghanistan,
recalled for House investigators scrutinizing the withdrawal how in 2018 he was awakened by a phone call informing him the military had been ordered to prepare to leave “in the middle of the night.” The general responded that doing so was “not feasible.”
The first Trump administration also worked to root out career civil servants who were suspected of undermining the president’s agenda or who spoke out when it appeared his directives were unlawful. A Defense Department official said Wednesday that while most career Pentagon staff and military personnel there seek to avoid politics, some now feel afraid based on their experiences during the hyperpartisan first Trump presidency, when chaotic decision-making and abrupt leadership changes at times made it difficult for them to do their jobs.
Trump, as commander in chief, has the authority to remove any senior military ranks at will. Such a move could risk political backlash from retired generals and lawmakers from both parties who evaluated and approved those nominations, but doing so also would allow him to appoint someone else he perceives to be more loyal to him and his agenda.
Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney, said her greatest concern for the military is if it is used to suppress dissent in the United States. While service members are required to follow U.S. law, all presidential orders stand to be interpreted by rank-and-file personnel as lawful even if they appear to fall in a gray zone, she said, with the possibility of disciplinary punishment for anyone who defies them.
“They will follow President Trump’s orders, particularly because the president can lawfully order domestic use of the military in a wide variety of situations,” VanLandingham predicted, calling the statutory limits on such force “easily legally surmountable.”
“There is huge risk in disobeying a president’s order, and seemingly little risk in obeying it,” she said.