27 Comments
User's avatar
Johan's avatar

Thank you for laying this out with such clarity. The trajectory you describe is chilling, but also familiar: history shows us that once cruelty and coercion are normalized as strategy, institutions rarely stop the slide in real time. Courts, like you note, are slow and deliberative by design, and authoritarians exploit that lag.

I’m not writing here out of faith that this will be stopped anytime soon.

I’m analyzing the behavior, because the pattern is what matters: the steady erosion of norms, the reframing of domestic dissent as “the enemy within,” and the way fear is used to make compliance seem rational. History tells us this is how regimes consolidate power…not all at once, but step by step, until silence feels safer than speech.

Your piece captures that dynamic with force. Grateful for your work in naming it.

Expand full comment
Goldfish's avatar

But the order DOES come with an asterisk that says "unless the order is unlawful".

Expand full comment
Mona Sigal's avatar

What I heard yesterday, was a clear declaration of civil war in the United States.

Expand full comment
Krista Allen's avatar

The Geneva Conventions apparently do not apply to domestic attacks. 🤬

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

They don't apply to Israel, either.

Expand full comment
Douglas Gilligan's avatar

“I know some of you may have strong feelings about this mission. That’s okay. You are citizens first, but you’re also service members who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and follow the orders of the President and the Governor,” Brig. Gen. Alan Gronewald wrote in a letter reported by Fox News. “That oath doesn’t come with an asterisk that says, ‘only when I agree with the mission.’”

That oath includes first and foremost " to support and defend the Constitution" even if you like the idea of taking up arms against your fellow citizens in violation of the law and the very concept of the Constitution. We are the "United States". That does not mean the states have disappeared, they are very much separate from the federal and the federal does not have the right to take over a state. Trump wants to take direct control of cities and states that do not support his agenda.

It is the obligation of soldiers to DISOBEY an illegal order. They do not have the luxury of waiting for a court case to wind it's way all up to the supreme court, taking months at least, long after Trump has already established his unconstitutional takeover of the state... They have to see it is wrong and STOP it, and the people who should lead that process are the generals who instead are telling their soldiers the most important part of their oath is to blindly obey the President, no matter what he tells them to do.

Just because the federal government declares they have taken control of a states national guard, does not mean it is legal. This administration has proven time and again that they have zero regard for the law, including in our courts. The DoJ has lost all credibility in our courts. The nationalization of national guard for 'police work' has already been declared illegal in our courts. That general should have made a very different statement. He COULD have, SHOULD have waited for the courts to clarify the legality of the mission, especially as there is no clear and present danger requiring immediate action.

Expand full comment
Jack Jordan's avatar

Isn't this a very important time to highlight an important truth about the oath mentioned above, i.e., that it is not unique to people who serve in or lead our military?

The relevant federal statute is 5 U.S.C. 3331, and it emphasizes that the first, foremost and constant duty of every executive branch employee below the president (and every judicial branch employee) is to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, not to any person, party or ideology. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

Expand full comment
Douglas Gilligan's avatar

Article 6 of the US Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"

It is also always timely to remind that under the 14th amendment, Section 3, Trump cannot be president, especially after he pardoned ALL of the insurrectionists on the first day of his second term in office, for the crimes he himself was complicit in at the end of his first term in office.

Expand full comment
Jack Jordan's avatar

That's correct. Article VI emphasizes that the first, foremost and constant duty of all public servants (all state and federal employees of the legislative, executive and judicial branches) is to "support" our "Constitution." Article II emphasizes that the first, foremost and constant duty of the president is to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of [his] Ability."

Article VI also emphasizes that "the supreme Law of the Land" is, first, our "Constitution, and" then the federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties." The president, his orders, proclamations or declarations are not part of the supreme law of the land.

Expand full comment
HL Gazes's avatar

Now, who is going to tell Trvmp that?

Expand full comment
Douglas Gilligan's avatar

The more people who say it gives 'cover' for those who need to say it. Spreading an idea until it becomes everywhere is a job for everyone.

Expand full comment
Jack Jordan's avatar

At the very least, federal judges and voters. Maybe Congress (after the elections).

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

Military personnel are not required to follow unlawful orders, and those are what Hegseth and Trump are issuing. Troops are educated enough to know when an order is illegal and are required to disobey it. Otherwise, they risk court martial.

What Trump is doing violates the Constitution, and the toadying Republicans are supporting it. The executive and legislative branches are out of control and it is the obligation of the judiciary to hold the line, not give Trump carte blanche to do as he pleases.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

I have lived in “war torn” San Francisco for over 50 years—the only fear I have of being mugged … is by ICE. Some “war from within”!

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Perhaps. Yet I’m not convinced that the top brass is convinced. As General Milley pointed out, the military is bound by the Constitution, not a king. And the Battery Boys speeches were mostly greeted with silence and gritted teeth.

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

The top brass will not comply with illegal orders even if they're issued by the Commander in Chief.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

One hopes. I can’t forget Trump’s “successful” campaign speech recently at Fort Bragg … where his usual delusional ranting was cheered by a select audience. But then again, accent on “select”.

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

I remember it too. It was appalling. They clapped and greatly enjoyed Trump's Greatest Hits. Trump loves doing the Las Vegas stand up comedy crap, but there was an audience last week of over 800 very serious people who were not amused.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

In what kind of world - Bizzaro World? - does Trump think he’s amusing? As noted, the crowd was vetted and only the Truly Faithful were allowed in. But this latest Trump/Hegseth show? Embarrassing. Infantile. A colossal waste of time, money and coverage.

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

Yes, Trump's rallies have always been "Bizaaro World "

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Indeed. Is America - home of the brave, land of the free - recognizable anymore? Has he transformed democracy into a burlesque show? Nor even Vaudeville, burlesque … one step above a strip show in the mall.

Expand full comment
Beth's avatar
Oct 4Edited

Note to Trump, Hegseth, and Noem: Antifa is not going to be attacking anything. But if I were you, just to be on the safe side, I'd head straight to their national headquarters and start arresting the staff!!

/s

Expand full comment
Ray Zielinski's avatar

And here’s the game plan: National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence”.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Like HUAC backed by a “real” militia (ICE) and, Brave Draft Dodger desperately hopes, the military.

Expand full comment
Adam's avatar

Call the Oregon AG, tell him to warn the Natl Guard commander, he will be arrested under state charges so the orange pig can’t help him out.

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

Is there any doubt at this point that the Republicans are all on board for a Trump dictatorship?

Expand full comment
Alison's avatar

Is this true? https://open.substack.com/pub/levremembers/p/breaking-trump-used-ai-to-scan-us?r=e989i&utm_medium=ios

Trump uses AI to scan faces of Generals for loyalty.

Expand full comment