What Would Happen if the Generals Refused to Follow Orders?
Trump and Hegseth are pushing the military too far — and now is the time to say so.
Anyone who has watched a dictatorship begin — or end — knows that the most critical element is total control of the military.
A calculated effort by the Trump administration to achieve an unprecedented grip on the nation’s armed forces is currently underway, and yet I don’t hear that clearly stated or acknowledged. To be sure, legacy media cover individual developments, and, in carefully framed analyses, imply that we should feel dread and alarm. But they don’t come right out and say what must be said.
Which is: This is Step One of a dictatorship.
Here are typical steps in the process of getting the military under thumb, steps we see unfolding since this administration took office:
Crudely “purify” the personnel of all who would challenge the new ethos;
Destroy any legal mechanisms for expressing dissent;
Encourage informing on others; create fear and paranoia among those who remain.
We saw this best exemplified recently when hundreds of senior generals and admirals stationed around the world were summoned to assemble at Quantico, VA, for a deliberately short-notice conclave without historical precedent.
They were given no explanation — which, as planned, worried, unsettled, and possibly terrified them.
Once they arrived, Trump, in a weird jokey pre-ramble to his traditional incoherent ramble, noted with astonishment that the men in uniform were not leaping up and applauding wildly after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s speech, and essentially threatened them as an audience: Remain silent, applaud, or leave (with the likelihood they would then never be allowed back.)
No mention was made of another option: expressing consternation at what is becoming of the military institution, or of the democracy and constitution it is sworn to protect.
And they were spoken to as minions — rather than accorded the respect to which they were accustomed — in a manner guaranteed to discomfit and intimidate them.
They had no doubt heard, from various sources, that some of them will lose their jobs. The obvious question for them to ponder: Will it be me? (In the past, Trump has shown no compunction about firing top military personnel with a lifetime of service and accrued skills and wisdom.)
They learned that they will face random polygraph tests and be made to sign nondisclosure agreements. This warning, via a leak to The Washington Post (like the Hegseth Signal leak), is ostensibly to “prevent leaks” but its real purpose seems to be to keep military personnel from discussing the current grave threat to democracy with each other and to discourage their jointly pondering what, if anything, they can or should do about it.
Generals will likely feel prohibited from even discussing whether they’re obligated to do any of these:
Follow any orders no matter how objectionable, unethical, immoral, illegal, or dangerous;
Carry out measures that contravene the Constitution or otherwise undermine our democracy and our freedom;
Put America, Americans, and our most cherished values, traditions, and institutions in harm’s way.
All of this creates fear and paralysis in our military, who are dealing with actual external threats. On this path to autocracy, everyone becomes afraid of being ratted out and punished. So they become silent and do whatever they’re told. (A former senior defense official who wishes to remain anonymous suggested surveillance technology might be used to monitor their attitude.)
To reinforce that fear, Hegseth warned that he will be overhauling the military channels that until now enabled defense personnel to file whistleblower complaints, report toxic leadership, or point out discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, or religion.
And he gave the senior officers permission to bully enlisted personnel — in moves the secretary said would “empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second-guessing.”
He has also started preparing them to use the military against the American public.
In a new development, as reported by the Minnesota Star Tribune, a senior White House official accidentally disclosed that the Trump administration was considering deploying not only the National Guard against the public in Portland, OR, but also an elite Army strike force. That would dramatically raise the stakes leading to possible martial law and point in a direction generals might not be comfortable with.
Meanwhile, a federal judge has temporarily blocked Trump from federalizing and deploying Oregon National Guard troops to Portland, saying he violated the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees that police power within the states resides with the states.
In her 30-page opinion, District Judge Karin Immergut issued a powerful rebuke of Trump’s perception of his executive power; she found that protests in Portland were not by any definition a “rebellion” nor do they pose the “danger of a rebellion.” Notably, Immergut is a Republican appointed by Trump. She did not mince words:
Furthermore, this country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. … This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.
Increasingly, then, the question is: What will the military leaders do? Let Trump turn full blown Kim Jong Un? Or say, “No sir!”
About saying “NO!”... It isn’t just legal — it is compulsory under the current conditions, and this will only become more apparent. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, Article 92, service members have the duty to obey only lawful orders and to refuse unlawful ones. An order is unlawful if it violates the Constitution, US laws, military regulations, or international law. Obeying illegal orders can result in criminal liability.
At Quantico, by remaining silent, by not applauding, by not smiling at Trump’s “jokes,” the generals and admirals gave some of us at least a sliver of hope that they understand the weighty responsibility upon their shoulders.
Perhaps they will not, after all, go quietly into the night.
Related: The Dictator’s Doom Loop Revisited: Trump Won’t Go Gentle - WhoWhatWhy
The Posse Comitatus Act is important because it prevents the military from acting as a domestic police force, protecting the principle of civilian control over the military and upholding the distinction between the military and civilian law enforcement. The Act's roots are in colonial opposition to British military rule and the U.S. military's abuses during the Reconstruction era, and its importance lies in limiting the use of armed forces for domestic law enforcement to maintain civil liberties and prevent military overreach into civilian affairs
Can we please bring up the Posse Commatatus act that the military pledges to
Not fighting Americans on US soldiers l