Republicans Are Now Parroting Trump’s Attacks on “Woke” Generals

Military leaders are learning that resisting a coup attempt has its costs.

Mother Jones illustration; Michael Brochstein/Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Monday, the New Yorker reported that Donald Trump once asked his chief of staff, retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, ā€œYou fucking generals, why canā€™t you be like the German generals?ā€

ā€œWhich generals?ā€ Kelly asked.

ā€œThe German generals in World War II,ā€ Trump said.

The article goes on to detail the many efforts made by General Mark Milleyā€”Trumpā€™s pick to serve as the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staffā€”to prepare for a potential Trump-led coup. Milley feared that the former presidentā€™s ā€œHitler-likeā€ embrace of the Big Lie would cause him to search for a ā€œReichstag momentā€ like the one the Nazis used to help establish a dictatorship.  

The reporting by New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser and New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker focuses on Trumpā€™s relationship with his generals. What lies beyond its scope is just how far Trumpā€™s disdain for military leaders has spread throughout his party. Republican candidates and elected officials have now made attacking generals and their supposed ā€œwokenessā€ a mainstay of their midterm rhetoric. After decades of fealty, they now portray military leaders as effete swamp dwellers who are too busy focusing on diversity initiatives to prepare for winning wars.

Trumpā€™s supporters know that he did not have the military on his side as he tried to steal the 2020 election. That will not necessarily be the case next time. Trump or some other anti-democratic president could install generals like Michael Flynn, who suggested after Trump lost that the former president could have the military ā€œrerunā€ the election, use the Defense Department to seize voting machines, or declare martial law.

Retired Army Maj. General Paul Eaton told me a purge of military leadership would be an ā€œextreme high riskā€ situation. ā€œIt would be used as an instrument to move on policies that are not constitutionally allowed, and would be an effort to ensure a defeat of our republic,ā€ he said. ā€œIt would be used as a national instrument of repression.ā€

Milley, who is still leading the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has become Republicansā€™ most common target after telling Congress last year that he wanted to understand the sources of ā€œwhite rageā€ and the forces that ā€œcaused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America.ā€ His support for anti-racism and anti-extremism training for soldiers is portrayed as tantamount to waving a white flag in front of the Chinese regime. Tucker Carlson has called him ā€œstupidā€ and a ā€œpig.ā€ 

Carlson is far from alone. Blake Masters, whom the Fox News host has called the ā€œfuture of the Republican Party,ā€ devoted a video to attacking the ā€œwoke corporate bozosā€ leading the military.

J.D. Vance, who, like Masters, has been bankrolled by his old boss Peter Thiel, shared a story on Twitter about China testing hypersonic missiles with the comment, ā€œMeanwhile our generals are focused on white rage and the manicure policy of the armed forces.ā€ In a ā€œrescue planā€ outlining what Republicans will do if they take back Congress, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) called for firing military leaders who prioritize ā€œracial politics over the security of our country.ā€ Trump has been more blunt, labeling Milley a “fucking idiot.”

The rhetoric grows more baroque the further one descends into right-wing echo chambers. A typical article in the American Mind, a publication of the Claremont Institute, the think tank affiliated with Stop the Steal lawyer John Eastman, urges American parents to not let their kids join the military and concludes by saying, “It is time to restore republican virtue, to sweep clean our military establishment.ā€ In another article, the same author, a twentysomething former Marine officer, asks Americans to start ā€œcyberbullying their generals.ā€

As the journalist Daniel Denvir has discussed, many Republicans have turned inwards. The military, with its focus on enemies abroad, is no longer the institution to be worshiped. It is now the copsā€”who take on BLM protesters, antifa members, and undocumented immigrantsā€”who are the real heroes. (Law enforcement quickly loses legitimacy when it goes after their side by, for example, raiding Mar-a-Lago.)

Eaton, who retired from the Army in 2006 and is now an outspoken Trump critic, referred me to a pro-Trump letter published after the election that was signed by 124 retired generals and admirals. The letter frames the 2020 election as a battle between ā€œsupporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty.ā€ After making noise about ā€œelection integrity,ā€ it warns that Democratsā€™ efforts to expand voting rights would instead allow them ā€œto forever remain in power violating our Constitution and ending our Representative Republic.ā€

These officers are all retired, but, as Eaton pointed out, they can be recalled to active duty by a future president. Flynn was the most obvious name missing from their letter. He too can be recalled, Eaton says. (The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment about the potential for that to happen.) An easier option for a Trumplike president could be to promote allies that are still on active duty. Either way, the result would be the same: A general corps that is loyal to an individual, not the nation they swore an oath to protect against enemies foreign and domestic.

This is not an abstract possibility. As Jonathan Swan reported for Axios last month, sources close to the former president have said that going after Americaā€™s national security apparatusā€”including the ā€œwokeā€ generalsā€”would be a top priority for Trump if he returns to office.

None of this to say to that American generals are above reproachā€”far from it. One notable example is Marine Maj. General Smedley Butler, who later regretted his role as ā€œracketeer for capitalismā€ while deployed roughly a century ago in Cuba, the Philippines, China, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. But, as Jonathan M. Katz recounts in a recent biography, Butlerā€™s track record was much better when it came to defending democracy at home.

In 1934, a bond salesman named Gerald MacGuire approached the then-retired two-time Medal of Honor recipient. He wanted Butler to put a stop to the New Deal by leading a 500,000-man coup. Butler said he was interested.

ā€œI am interested in it, but I do not know about heading it,ā€ he reported replying. ā€œI am very greatly interested in it, because you know, Jerry, my interest is, my one hobby is, maintaining a democracy. If you get these 500,000 soldiers advocating anything smelling of fascism, I am going to get 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you, and we will have a real war right at home.ā€

Nearly a century later, in the wake of a coup attempt that progressed much further, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) asked Flynn if he believed “the violence on January 6 was justified morally.ā€

ā€œTake the Fifth,ā€ he replied.

ā€œDo you believe the violence on January 6 was justified legally?ā€ Cheney followed up.

ā€œFifth,ā€ he replied.

ā€œGeneral Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?ā€

“The Fifth,” he said.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate