This is a far cry from the 1964 film Seven Days of May, which depicts a military plot to overthrow the president of the United States. Nevertheless, there appears to be an anti-Trump cabal with inflammatory tendencies within the Pentagon. Furthermore, this information is not provided via social media rumors or random sources, but from left-wing CNN. This leads state commentator Andrea Widberg to suggest that:
Something is deeply wrong with the Pentagon—the same one that “forgot” to send absentee ballots to U.S. soldiers serving overseas, a gross violation of civil rights. There is, and even the chief should be brought to court martial. Defenseman Lloyd Austin.
What's the problem? Pentagon officials are conspiring to find a way to circumvent President Donald Trump's orders for the military to secure our southern border and help remove illegal aliens from our country. Apparently the Pentagon believes its role is only to protect other countries' borders. For example, the one in Ukraine.
7 days in January?
As CNN reports:
Pentagon officials are holding private discussions about how the Pentagon would respond if President Donald Trump sent active-duty troops into the country and ordered mass layoffs of apolitical employees. He told CNN that he is.
President Trump has signaled a willingness to use active-duty troops for domestic law enforcement and mass deportations, and has linked the federal government with his supporters, calling for “corrupt relationships” within the U.S. national security establishment. He expressed his desire to “wipe out everyone.”
In his final term, Trump had troubled relationships with many military leaders, including now-retired Gen. Mark Milley, who took steps to limit Trump's ability to use nuclear weapons while chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Meanwhile, the president-elect has repeatedly called US generals “woke,” “weak,” and “incompetent leaders.”
Officials are currently working out various scenarios for an overhaul of the Pentagon.
“We're all preparing and planning for the worst-case scenario, but the reality is we don't know yet what will happen,” said one defense official.
Trump's election has also raised questions within the Pentagon about what happens when the president issues illegal orders, especially when political appointees within the department do not push back.
perspective
This is shocking. It's a different matter if the order is clearly illegal. For example, we would expect the military to disobey orders to carry out a Mirai-style massacre. But blatant illegality is not the whole or part of the problem. CNN's own title states that Pentagon officials are “discussing how to respond if President Trump issues a controversial order.” (Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, the military is not in a position to take sides with either major political party in political “debates.” Weren't Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden's orders to wake up the military (more on this later) controversial? And wouldn't it be controversial to do something unprecedented and have a proxy attack on targets inside Russia, inviting the possibility of thermonuclear war?
In reality, “both sides'' are parties to the “dispute.'' (You can't have a dispute unless at least two sides agree with each other.) But which side of the controversy should prevail was decided by the people on November 5th. The military's only job now is to obey the next commander-in-chief.
Is it illegal?
Moreover, the Pentagon may be confusing “law” with agenda. Widberg writes:
First, it is clearly within the federal government's purview to protect America's borders from foreign invasions, whether by terrorists, cartels, or hidden economic refugees. That means the president has the power to order troops to the border. At worst, if people at the Pentagon conspire to deny that order, it becomes a seditious conspiracy to undermine the president's constitutional authority. In the worst case scenario, it is treason. In any case, if they are military, it will start with a court martial.
Second, the president clearly has the constitutional authority to protect Americans on American soil from invaders who have already breached the border. Punishments for Pentagon officials who commit sabotage range from court-martial to trial for sedition and conspiracy or treason.
Third, the President has the authority under the Enforcement Act to send the military to hot spots in the United States in the event of violence that deprives citizens of their civil rights. In addition, there are some compelling exceptions to the Posse Politiques Act, which limits the federal government's power to use military forces on U.S. soil to enforce domestic policy.
For example, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to send the military to suppress civil unrest, insurrection, and rebellion.
Widberg goes on to list nine historical examples of U.S. military use domestically. First, in 1957, President Eisenhower hired the Army's 101st Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock schools. The last one was in 2021 when the National Guard occupied D.C. during Joe Biden's inauguration.
How do you think the military woke up?
Moreover, if Trump were to reshape the military according to his own vision, would it really be the kind of authoritarian and unprecedented move that much of the media has hinted at? Again, this is what Clinton, Obama, and Biden themselves did. After all, how do you think the military woke up?
And it's a military-level awakening. Consider the Telegraph article just published yesterday entitled “The takeover of the US military by the woke left is a real and present danger”. The Biden administration opened military service to all “transgender” individuals for the first time in 2021, the newspaper reminded us. The administration was also interested in eliminating fitness standards for the Space Force. (Hey, if Jabba the Hutt can fly through space at 600 pounds, why wouldn't he?) Additionally, the Telegraph wrote:
Even the promotion of senior officers appears to be influenced by political and ideological considerations. Consider some of the people Biden lifted up. Under his leadership, he's the one who allowed drag shows, the one who supported kneeling during the national anthem, the one who called for dialogue about whiteness, and the one who declared that DEI should be “in our DNA.” . In the Air Force.
The Telegraph article has more. We recommend reading the full text.
Loyal to me, but not to you
But the problem is that when a left-wing president wakes up and disparages the military, the mainstream media largely ignores it. So many, if not most people, don't even know it's happening. And when the traditionalist commander-in-chief tries to come to his senses, the media goes wild. They portray it as a dangerous attack on the status quo, even though it is simply an attempt to restore the status quo. Therefore, the media biases the public against national security obligations.
Today's military is part of a swamp (dark, dirty, and crocodile-infested), and it's critical to clear it out. Is this controversial? Sure. But that's only because we have a dark fifth column that cares more about winning culture wars than actual wars.