Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

By using military against ‘enemy within,’ Trump would end democracy

The people who have led our military need to speak up now

Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly

Retired generals who served in the Trump administration, like John Kelly, need to speak out about the threat Donald Trump poses to American democracy.

Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

As the 2024 presidential election enters its final phase, Donald Trump has gone full bore in following the frightening playbook of wannabe dictators. He also plans to dust off old laws that will allow him to carry out his anti-immigrant crusade and use the American military against people he calls the “enemy within.”

At a rally in Aurora, Colo., on Oct. 11, the former president promised to be America’s protector. He said that “upon taking office we will have an Operation Aurora at the federal level” and undertake a mass removal of illegal immigrants.


Even as he has ramped up his chilling threats, his poll numbers have been rising. Parts of his message seem to be resonating with voters.

To take one example, polls now show that “More than half of all Americans, including a quarter of Democrats, support the mass deportation of immigrants who are living in the country illegally.” Public support for such a draconian policy has increased by 11 percent since 2021.

Last May, Trump made clear that he would “have no problem using the military, per se,” to deport millions of people. He now openly acknowledges that mass deportations would be “a bloody story.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The former president contends that laws meant to prevent the use of the military against civilians inside the United States would not be applicable if he ordered the military to round up migrants. “These aren’t civilians,” Trump argues. “These are people that aren’t legally in our country. This is an invasion of our country.”

With three weeks left in the presidential campaign, and as Trump reiterates his plan to use the military against civilians and his political opponents, retired generals who served in the Trump administration need to step out of the shadows. People like James Mattis (Trump’s first secretary of defense), John Kelly (who served as chief of staff) and Mark Milley (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) must come forward and remind voters about what they have said about the threat Trump poses to American democracy and the freedom that Americans now enjoy.

In the meantime, what Trump said in Aurora cannot be dismissed as an off-the-cuff remark. Reading from his teleprompter, Trump promised that as soon as he got back to the Oval Office he would invoke “the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 … to target every migrant criminal network operating on American soil” and expedite their removal.

The way that act has been used in the past is a stain on our history.

As the Brennan Center for Justice observes, “The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is a wartime authority that allows the president to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation.” The act refers specifically to “invasions,” which may explain why Trump regularly refers to the influx of illegal immigrants into this country in those terms.

The law “permits the president to target these immigrants without a hearing and based only on their country of birth or citizenship … it can be — and has been — wielded against immigrants who have done nothing wrong, have evinced no signs of disloyalty, and are lawfully present in the United States.”

No wonder Trump can’t wait to get his hands on it.

If he does, he will follow in the footsteps of President Woodrow Wilson, who invoked it during World War I to target people from Germany living in the United States. The act also provided the legal basis for the infamous internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Wilson continued to use the act after the war ended, a precedent followed by President Harry Truman, who relied on it for authority to continue the internment and deportations started under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Supreme Court upheld the Truman administration’s extended reliance on the Alien Enemies Act.

Can anyone imagine that the court’s current MAGA majority would do anything different?

Trump’s speech at Aurora didn’t stop with his remarks about the Alien Enemies Act. He went on to offer some thoughts about the role of the military if he is reelected.

“We have,” Trump told a cheering audience, “the greatest military in the world, but you have to know how to use them. It’s the enemy from within. All the scum that we have to deal with that hate our country. That’s a bigger enemy than China and Russia!”

On Sunday, he reprised the “enemy from within” line in a Fox News interview.

In response to a question about whether he was worried about violence on Election Day, the former president quickly pivoted to his usual anti-immigrant riff. “I think,” Trump insisted, “the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and destroying our country and by the way, totally destroying our country. … I think the bigger problem are the people from within.”

Leaving nothing to the imagination Trump went on to say, “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. It should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military.”

Though he did not say it to Fox, the former president plans, as the Brennan Center reports, “to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to use the military as a domestic police force, on his first day in office.“ Like the Alien Enemies Act, the Insurrection Act has a long history.

It was first enacted in 1792 and does not define what counts as “insurrection” and “rebellion.” The Insurrection Act was kept on the books a century later when Congress prohibited “the president from using federal troops to enforce civilian law under most circumstances.”

Stirring up fear of internal enemies and radical leftists also has a long history. That history offers a troubling warning about Trump’s musings about what he will do to people he considers “very bad.”

That prospect underlines the urgency of the present moment. If Trump wins on Nov. 5, we would be left with freedom for those who do not offend the powerful, and repression — enforced by the military — for everyone else.

Is that the future that people who spent their lives wearing the uniform of our country want for themselves or the branches of the armed forces that they led? If it is not, then Mattis, Kelly and Milley need to speak out loudly and repeatedly.

Recall that in 2020, Mattis denounced Trump’s plan to use the military against protesters after the murder of George Floyd. He warned that doing so would “erode … the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part.”

He said that Trump’s behavior in office made a “mockery of our Constitution.”

In 2023, Kelly went on the record to describe the former president as “A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. … A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.”

And just this year, Milley apparently told The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward that Trump is a “fascist to the core” and “the most dangerous person to this country.”

Those retired military leaders, all of whom have served their country so well, can do so again by going on television and using social media every day to remind moderates and undecided voters of their warnings about Trump. There is no time to waste.

Read More

Dictionary entry for "democracy"
Paving the path forward to strengthening democracy
Lobro78.Getty Images

A Path Forward for the Pro-Democracy Community

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

In the weeks following President Trump’s inauguration, it is challenging to make sense of the state of our democracy. I am in some conversations where colleagues and friends who assert that Elon Musk is leading a coup. For many, “constitutional crisis” has become the term of the day. I’ve met with conservatives buoyed by a new sense of dynamism and opportunity for re-invention of a stagnant and dysfunctional government and are critical of the left for alarmism. I also know many who have already lost their jobs due to federal cuts, having spent their entire careers fighting for democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

An engraving from a painting of Patrick Henry delivering an address before the Virginia Assembly. From the New York Public Library.

Getty Images, Smith Collection/Gado

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

In Federalist 10, explaining some of the protections of the new Constitution in 1787, James Madison observed that, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm….” The Founders defined tyranny as the legislative, executive, and judicial powers all being combined in the hands of a single individual or small group of people. So, they divided these three powers into separate and independent branches of the government that checked and balanced each other, preventing this accumulation of power. If, however, the people elected an authoritarian president and a legislature of toadies, who allowed this president to install a compliant judiciary, this protection could be lost. Hence, when asked shortly after the Constitutional Convention concluded in 1787 what the delegates had created, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Echoing Madison, the Supreme Court in 1866, in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), wrote, “Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln” as they overturned Lambden Milligan’s conviction before a military commission under martial law in Indiana during the Civil War. Milligan was charged with aiding a secret society that gave material support to the rebellion, conspiring to free Confederate prisoners, and conspiring to raid northern arsenals to come to the aid of the South. The Court’s five-member majority ruled that martial law could not be imposed in states where the civilian courts were open and functioning. Four members of the Court disagreed because state courts could be open and functioning but be in the hands of rebels. Martial law may again be tested, but more fundamental questions are how to prevent the rise of a tyrant in the first place and what remedies are available should the voters elect one.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meet the Faces of Democracy: Derek Bowens

Derek Bowen.

Issue One

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Derek Bowens

Derek Bowens has been a nonpartisan election administrator in North Carolina for over a decade. Since 2012, he served in various capacities, including as the director of elections in New Hanover County, North Carolina. In 2017, he became the director of elections in Durham County. Durham County is home to Duke University and North Carolina Central University, a jurisdiction of nearly a quarter of a million registered voters, the fifth largest in the state.

Bowens has been nationally recognized for his work by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the National Association of Counties. In 2020, Durham County won a Clearinghouse Award from the EAC for its innovative app that allowed voters to locate polling places near them, view voting information, and see current polling place wait times.

Keep ReadingShow less
Do Trump’s Goals Justify His Words and Actions?

President Donald Trump.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Do Trump’s Goals Justify His Words and Actions?

As co-publishers of The Fulcrum, it is time to clarify our mission in the context of what we are witnessing from the current Trump Administration.

The barrage of executive orders in the last few weeks has resulted in outrage by his political opponents. In many cases, the responses are justified. Still, oftentimes, the responses often ignore the fact that there might be some truth in what the Trump administration is saying and legitimate reasons for some actions they are taking.

Keep ReadingShow less