After Donald Trump’s landslide victory in the 2024 US elections, the Pentagon fears “the great upheavals” that could occur with the tycoon as commander in chief, with an “authoritarian drift”but also “a chaotic decision-making process that makes work difficult with sudden changes”. But not only that. There are also fears that the president-elect may make good on his campaign promise to deploy the military nationwide against American citizens, that he will demand loyalty from department heads and attempt to change an institution that is nonpartisan and apolitical into one explicitly loyal to him.
This was revealed by the Washington Post, recalling how during his first term Trump broke the rules and often clashed with Pentagon leaders, even if they were appointed by him.
“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 among the American people,” Richard Kohn, a professor and military historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Trump does not truly understand the value of civil-military relations or the importance of a nonpartisan, apolitical military“, he added. One of Trump’s spokeswomen, Karoline Leavitt, said Tuesday’s vote gave the president-elect ”a mandate to implement the promises he made during the election campaign. And he will keep them.”
“Constitution at risk of violation with illegitimate orders”
There are several officials from the first Trump administration who put on guard against an authoritarian drift under his presidency. Among them are his former Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, retired General 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. Each of them, writes the Washington Post, during the previous Trump presidency tried to ”thwart his darkest impulses” and subsequently ”expressed grave concerns that he might violate the Constitution by giving illegitimate orders to the army” . Retired General Jim Mattis, Trump’s first defense secretary, described him in June 2020 as “the first president in my life who doesn’t try to unite the American people”.
As president, Trump increased the Pentagon’s budget, pressured U.S. allies to spend more on defense and eased battlefield restrictions that had been introduced by his predecessor Barack Obama. A move welcomed by the Department of Defense, where however the impulsive and anti-establishment nature of his presidency created havoc. As president, Trump also used his personal social media to broadcast major US troop movements abroad, including the withdrawal from northern Syria and personnel reductions in Afghanistan as US officials were negotiating with the Taliban.
Repression of dissent, fears about the army
Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force lawyer and national security law expert, said her pThe biggest concern is that the military is being used to suppress dissent in the United States. All presidential orders are intended to be interpreted by rank-and-file personnel as legitimate even if they appear to fall into a gray area, he told the Washington Post, adding that there is the possibility of disciplinary punishment for anyone who disobeys. “They will follow President Trump’s orders, particularly because the president can legally order the domestic use of the military in various situations,” VanLandingham predicts. “There is enormous risk in disobeying a president’s order and seemingly little risk in disobeying obey you.”
Peter Feaver, a civil-military relations expert at Duke University, said most military personnel and career civil servants will likely see their mission as serving the new president and enabling him to exercise his powers as commander in boss. “Their professional duty is to warn the leaders of the unintended consequences of what they are trying to do,” he said. “This is not resistance, this is not disloyalty, this is literally their job,” he concluded.
Austin and the call to the troops: “Defend the Constitution”
Yesterday Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin guaranteed that the military will ensure ”a calm, orderly and professional transition to the new Trump administration”. In a message to US troops, Austin said that “as always, the US military will stand ready to carry out the policies of its next commander in chief and obey all lawful orders from its civilian chain of command.”
The US Secretary of Defense also wrote that the US military will “distinguish itself” from politics and continue to support and defend the US Constitution. “You are not just any army – wrote the head of the Pentagon - You are the United States Army, the best fighting force on Earth, and you will continue to defend our country, our Constitution and the rights of all our citizens”.
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Richard Kohn, Military Historian
Time.news Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Professor Kohn. The recent reports about the Pentagon’s concerns following Donald Trump’s landslide victory in the 2024 elections have raised significant alarms. You’ve eloquently pointed out the potential “authoritarian drift” under a second Trump presidency. Can you elaborate on what this means for civil-military relations in the United States?
Richard Kohn: Thank you for having me. The concerns regarding civil-military relations stem from Trump’s previous presidency, where he exhibited a clear disregard for the traditional boundaries that keep the military apolitical. An “authoritarian drift” suggests a shift away from established norms of governance, which could undermine the military’s role as a neutral entity serving the nation rather than the President’s personal agenda.
Time.news Editor: That’s certainly a troubling possibility. The article mentions that former Pentagon leaders expressed fears Trump might issue “illegitimate orders.” What specifically makes those orders potentially unconstitutional or hazardous?
Richard Kohn: The Constitution provides guardrails for military engagement and the use of force, particularly against American citizens. If Trump were to order deployments against the populace, as he hinted during his campaign, it could lead to serious violations of constitutional rights. The military must remain independent, and any orders perceived as punitive against domestic dissent would not only contravene legal norms but could also erode public trust in the institution.
Time.news Editor: Former officials, like General Milley and Secretary Esper, have sounded alarms about Trump’s impulsive leadership style. In your opinion, how might such unpredictability affect military strategy and effectiveness?
Richard Kohn: Unpredictability can lead to confusion and mistrust within the ranks. Decisions made without adherence to strategic planning and established protocols can result in chaos. Imagine major troop deployments being decided overnight or through social media announcements, as we witnessed previously. This creates a lack of cohesion and can endanger operations, which is especially grave during times of international conflict.
Time.news Editor: The article also mentions fears that the military may be used to suppress dissent within the citizenry. Rachel VanLandingham stresses the potential for ”disciplinary punishment” for those who disobey orders. How does this dynamic pose a risk for the military’s integrity?
Richard Kohn: That’s a critical concern. The military is trained to be loyal to the Constitution and uphold democratic values, not to suppress the rights of citizens. If soldiers are pressured to obey questionable orders, it can create a culture of compliance that disregards ethical responsibility. Over time, this risks transforming the military into an instrument of political power rather than a defender of democracy.
Time.news Editor: As we look ahead, what do you think can be done to safeguard the military from potential misuse should Trump take office again?
Richard Kohn: Robust internal safeguards must be established. It’s vital to reinforce civil-military norms within the military’s culture and ensure open lines of communication between military leadership and civilian authorities. Furthermore, Congress has an essential role to play in maintaining oversight, particularly when it comes to deploying forces domestically. Ensuring that the military remains an apolitical entity dedicated to serving the American people must be our collective priority.
Time.news Editor: Thank you for these insights, Professor Kohn. It seems we are at a critical juncture for the future of U.S. democracy and military integrity.
Richard Kohn: Indeed, thank you for having this important conversation. It’s crucial for citizens to remain informed and engaged in ensuring that our institutions uphold their fundamental principles.