Generals Tell Truth About How Trump Endangers U.S. | The Daily Beast Podcast

I'm Joanna Coles. This is the Daily Beast podcast, and in today's episode, we're going to look back. on our coverage of Donald Trump and the military over the past year. The Daily Beast podcast has been unpacking every jaw dropping moment of Trump's. attempts to wield power, charm generals and change the nature. of the most powerful fighting force in history. We've brought in former generals who've lived it, they've studied it, and they know the military values that Donald Trump is attempting to subvert.

Author Michael Wolff, the man who decodes Trump's every misstep, walks us through the $45 million military birthday parade. that ended in a low budget cosplay nightmare, and why Trump was furious at his own defense secretary Pete Hegseth. The Daily Beast's must read columnist David Rothkopf exposes the full truth. behind Trump and Pete Hegseth pep rally for generals and admirals,

and why the authoritarian impulses we're seeing aren't. just alarming they're already reshaping our world order. Retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling pulls no punches about what. top brass were really thinking during Trump's rambling speech in front. of the military brass in Quantico, and the risks they pose to U.S. readiness. Senator Elissa Slotkin and retired Major. General Paul Eaton weigh in on the chaos, the loyalty tests.

and the battlefield myths that have replaced strategy. And we even get a front row take on Pete Hegseth himself. Why the mooch thinks he squandered his shot at running for president. So stay with us. You're about to get the inside story from the people who know it best, and it's as shocking as it is essential. Michael. So much to discuss, as always. And you're in Cannes?

I'm in Cannes. Wish I were there. You don't wish you were here. I do, I do. I have been many times, and it's, you know, and it's the south of France. It's the south of France. Even even with people you detest. Which are most of the people who go to, Cannes Lions. It is nevertheless still the south of France, of course. All anybody is talking about here is Donald Trump. and the significance of Donald Trump. And I need to make a quick apology following all the comments we got from,

our last podcast, because I misidentified. Senator Padilla, I called him or Padilla, as you call him. I, called him Anthony instead of Alex and I. Actually, I didn't realize that he was the senior senator from California. For some reason. I thought Adam Schiff was because. Adam Schiff has been on the landscape for such a long time. I mean, but they're both new. Well, exactly. They're both new and relatively new in their Senate roles. And, is it Padilla or Padilla?

You know, technically it's Padilla, but we're in America. People seem to refer to him as Padilla. Anyway, Senator Padilla, if you're listening, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the senior senator from California. And I also felt guilty, actually, to hyperbole about the state of chaos, as I was referring to it in California, which many people pointed out. It's just not true. It's a small area of L.A. that's in lockdown, which makes it even more egregious.

that Donald Trump has called in the National Guard over. the head of Gavin Newsom, who we spoke to last week. Anyway, I want you to address those comments. because many of you wrote in and you're perfectly you're perfectly right. So let's get this out of the way. And then we have another very nice comment about your bookshelf, which I'm going to come to right at the end of this podcast. But obviously this weekend it was the birthday parade, and I am unbelievably curious to find out what you thought of it.

And then, as importantly, what the man. whose birthday parade it was thought of it too. None other than our own president, Donald Trump. What do you what are you hearing? What are people saying? Yeah. You know, it's it's really important to understand, when we think about Donald Trump, how much time he spends complaining, I mean, nothing makes the man happy. And spending $45 million on a birthday.

celebration, appears not to have made him happy, either. He's kind of pissed off. I mean, he's pissed off at the soldiers. I mean, he's accusing them of hamming it up. And but, you know, and and by that, he seems to mean that. that they were having a good time, that they were waving that they were, that they were enjoying themselves. and showing a convivial face.

rather than a military face. Interesting. And he kind of reamed out Hegseth for this. Apparently there there was a phone call and he was and he said. and he said to us, you know, the tone was all wrong. Why was the tone wrong? Why why what what, who staged this? There was the tone problem. You know, Trump keeps repeating himself. So that was the word on that on that phone call was tone. I would interpret that he you know, he wanted something.

menacing, I suppose, you. know, something military, like something like, you know, we're. we're this is this is the most staggering force in the world, and maybe it will come for you instead of, you know, I think it appeared. to a lot of people that this was that there was a kind of festive air. Everybody was was actually.

celebrating, celebrating something, you know, the. the 250 years of the US military, probably celebrating that more than Donald Trump's birthday, but it didn't send the message that he apparently wanted, which is that. that he was the commander in chief of this, of this menacing enterprise. Well, certainly having soldiers dressed up in costumes from 200 years ago.

would not send a menacing vibe to an enemy. If they were looking at this, I thought it had the vibes of a sort of trade show. A trade show for the army that the plinths that they were sitting on, this sort of, theater that the, VIPs were sitting on, that Donald Trump was sitting on. with next to us and, and, Melania, it looked like. it had been put up overnight. and it literally looked like something from a trade show.

Yeah. No, no, I mean, it was not none of this was sending the message. that he seems to have wanted to send, which is that this which was a threat. I think that's what he wanted. And he got the opposite of that. He he got a kind of, you know, a kind of a hamachi gathering. Right? Which, by the way, no one went to the other thing. So. So he's insisted, you know, put it out. He said 250,000 people that Stephen Chang put that out.

Yeah, but but that that was from Trump. Put it out 250,000. That is it. 250,000. He kept he kept saying this, you know, to everybody else saying but, but 250,000 when in fact it was. I mean, the people I know there who were there said he at tops. Tops maybe 40,000 and probably more like 20,000. You could see the empty bleachers. You could see as the drones pulled back, lots of empty lawn.

You couldn't. Yeah. No, I mean, nobody nobody was. I mean, who would go, you know, I mean, let's I mean, it's. hard to get anybody a draw to any parade. It's a parade. Well, I, I can imagine. the I mean, as a parent of two boys, when they were little, I could imagine having taken them to that because they would be intrigued. by watching the men. March. By I mean the thing I found most striking, and I admit,

I come from a land where I'm not sure, but Britain could, do very much militarily now, but we sure can put on a good parade. And so the one thing that you can see is all the soldiers marching in time. And the thing I found really striking was that lots of them, of the brigades. and camo literally went in with each other. And I think we're very bad at parades. I think parades are like one of those old fashioned. entertainment, things like circuses.

I mean, you know, we've we've, the, the television. has basically put those things out of business a long time ago. But this was a producer, my understanding is that. that Pete Hegseth knew who put the thing together. I mean, I don't know why Mark Burnett wasn't involved. in putting something together that felt more professional. Yeah, well, it's not even the professional thing that I think is, is. it's most interesting that somehow they didn't get the memo from Trump.

that he wanted threat and menace, and they and they got the opposite of that. Nice. They got nice. The military's a nice military friendly. We're going to throw sweets into the crowd, which is of course, what they do. And do you think that was a deliberate. misinterpretation of his message? Was this actually quite a smart, subversive. take on his message, or do you think it was just accidental?

But they really didn't understand? No, I think it probably was subversive or better. Heads prevailed on on this. as a branding exercise, you know, I mean, Trump's. Trump's thing, I think is the think of the military. like we thought of it in the, in the in the 1950s and 60s. when Russia was the, the enemy and it was a Cold War enterprise. And it was sort of Doctor Strange love in.

and you know, and we were always, you know, the, the guys in the military. were always ready to bomb someone back into the Stone age. And, and that and it was a threatening force then, which I think was was very difficult. And many politicians found it very difficult to contain. But the military has changed radically since then. I mean, it's it's now a sort of,

you know, very, very PR aware, H are aware kind of, you know, they bring in McKinsey consultants or all the, all the time. I mean, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a. it's a much more corporate for, I mean, for better or worse, a corporate image conscious. And d. basically complex organization and I think that's.

what we saw out there, yesterday. And that's not what Trump wanted to see. I don't think he understands. That's what the military has become, although, you know, in every situation. in which he's in which he's faced with with the military, the. the top brass, he's always complaining about it. They're always pulling out PowerPoints to show him. And he's always leaving the room because he can't watch a PowerPoint.

Right. Well, and and you think, you know, obviously. the future of military is much more technical. It's much more cyber. It's relying on drones. I mean, it was hard not to listen to that tank. creaking in the silence down the street because nobody was cheering. That that it was like watching. fax machines roll by in the age of the eyesight. Yeah. No, I mean, I think that that it is. I mean, he is again, you know, Trump is located somewhere in the past.

You know, I've, I've often put it as 1965, all of his references, and, and and I think this again, he, he expected to see that kind of military. and said he got, you know, the modern, the modern military, a complex organization with all kinds of constituencies, very aware of, of.

of how it is perceived, of how it wants to be perceived. Yeah. Well, I loved the robot dog, but but what I. was struck by was a watching. him watching the parade, and he looked bored. I mean, this is a long time for Donald Trump to sit still. Other the man who was jumping up and saluting, Melania looked bored, Marco Rubio was yawning, and Pete Hegseth just looked extremely anxious to greet. Sitting there next to the president in charge of this parade.

Well, again, it's parades. Americans don't watch parades. Parades are actually boring. They're repetitive. They go on forever and ever there. There really is no narrative. It's all it's all old fashion. There's no narrative. It reminds me, actually, of, I think the second time Obama, Obama's. second inauguration, he had to sit there watching all these little bands.

from small town America, and he was wildly chewing gum. to keep himself, I think, sort of focused, but. Well, I was also struck that they're sitting there. watching this parade, as you say, with no narrative whatsoever. Well, the narrative playing out in the Middle East is Israel. and Iran going at it and actual warfare. going on while Trump is cosplaying. Being commander in chief goes further than that.

This war is taking, taking place, and we are irrelevant to it. We were not. even even if Trump is rushing forward to kind of try to claim. some kind of influence in this thing, he had no influence in. In fact, it was basically against him. Basically, he got played. They used him. The Israelis appear to have used him as cover. He's carry out carrying on a negotiation.

which which was seeming to go to go nowhere. And and the theory was that that would go. that Israel would not attack until after that gambit was played out. And of course, they, they did attack shocking. no one so much as Donald Trump. I wanted to start with something that's happening. very close to you, actually, in Quantico at the Marine Corps University.

That's where Pete Hegseth has summoned more than 800, generals. So every every one, two, three, four star general in the Marine. Corps, in the Army and the Air Force, every every Navy admiral. and all the top enlisted members of each of those branches. have all been summoned for, what apparently is just a pep talk. And as we learned over the weekend, a course. Guess who wants to get in on the pep talk one Donald J. Trump, because no event is incomplete beside them.

I'll just say that if you are, you know, one of the greatest, most informed, most knowledgeable people in national security. I'll just start with the really basic question. Is this a good idea? That's a leading question. Come. Of course it's not a good idea. It's not a good idea on several levels, you know, on one level, you putting all of your leading, generals and admirals. in the same place is a bad idea from a security perspective.

On a more practical day to day level, since by, I don't think somebody is going to seize that, security, you know, threat. The reality is we are distracting the leadership of our military, for an exercise which seems likely to be an empty exercise. This is part of a pattern, right, because what the administration is doing is saying,

we want to have the strongest military in the world, but we'd like to deploy. a bunch to our borders, but we'd like to deploy a bunch to our cities, but we're going to alienate a bunch of people within the military. Because, we're going to erase the history of people of color in the military. We're going to erase the history of women in the military. We're going to erase the history of the LGBT community in the military, and we're going to fire a bunch of people from those communities,

because we're going to say that they were hired, for diversity reasons. So they're already doing things on day after day after day. that are reducing readiness. And the United States military, even as they say, they, you know, they want to have this big, tough, military force, but that and, you know, add to that, why are we bringing them together? We're bringing them together to hear. the views of America's most.

famous draft dodger, Donald Trump. And this frat boy, who's spent a few years in the military. But whose life subsequent to that. in veterans organizations and everything else was. You know, marred by scandal and mismanagement. Who is completely unqualified? The guy who is the least qualified secretary of defense in our history. And they're going to lecture the career leaders.

of our military at this particular moment. It is not going down well, I can tell you, I've spoken to a bunch of generals. and admirals and people close to them, and I can tell you it is not going down. Well, this is, seen as a waste of time, and, it's it's it's. it offends them at a pretty fundamental level. There might be people, you know, thinking, oh, well, you know, getting getting together. Your generals, boat companies have all hands meeting all the time.

You know, we were talking about about Apple. Apple has all hands meetings and everybody turns up. What's the what's the difference here? Why is it so important that we have independent thinking. or you know what, what are the things that we should be looking for? Well, look, I mean, the, the, the secretary of Defense runs. one of the largest, most complex organizations on Earth, an organization. that is supposed to be devoting itself in real time all the time to the protection.

of the United States, to raising our readiness to be able to fight, any foe that might, seek to attack us and, to enable us to be able to use the military. as a tool, diplomatic tool to help us achieve our goals as a nation. This meeting helps achieve none of those things, you know, getting them all together in a room to listen to this, frat boy and this draft dodger lecture them about a warrior.

ethos is, you know, it's ridiculous. It's low comedy. To talk about lethality, which he talks about all the time. to the leaders of the most powerful fighting force. that has ever been assembled in the history of the world. Nobody doubts the lethality of the United States. Department of Defense or the people within the Department of Defense.

The only thing they know is we are weaker today than we were nine months ago. Why are we weaker? Because we've weakened our alliances. Why are we weaker? Because we've strengthened our enemies. Why are we weaker? Because, as I said earlier, we've reduced the readiness of our forces, and we've gotten rid of a lot of qualified leaders. who are super helpful in leading those forces. And so what what Hegseth is. doing here, consistent, by the way, with what he's done.

since he arrived in the office, is actually damaging. the Department of Defense and actually weakening us. And, you know, you can see this and everything, but he couldn't keep the staff together. There were scandals within his office. Nobody wants to work with him. It's it's it's ridiculous. And it's what you would get if you got a fox TV news host. to cast play as the secretary of defense, which is what we've got going on now.

You know, we've got this guy and he's, like, flexing, like he probably did. at 100 bars over the course of his life, saying, look at me, I'm a tough soldier. and not stop and say as a secretary of defense. is supposed to do, how do I make America stronger? How do I make America safer? What do those those generals and admirals that you speak to and those around them? What what is their what's their fear?

What do they think is coming next, or what is going to happen. as a result of this sort of meetings that could have been emails and calls, play and performative, versions of governing? Well, it's, you know, essentially, as one guy. said to me, but essentially letting the air out of the tires, right? We are slowly making ourselves less capable, and we're doing it at a time when it's very clear that the civilian leadership.

upon which the military defends, the president of the United States, the secretary of defense, people who are holding senior positions. within the defense community, people holding senior positions. within the intelligence community, are, among the least competent that we've ever had. I would add to that, by the way, that, you know, one of the critical factors. in maintaining our national security is, not surprisingly,

the National Security Council. And, you know, I've written two books on the National Security Council. I'm kind of a historian of the National Security Council, and I only say that to make this have a little more impact. We effectively don't have a National Security Council right now. It has been weakened to the weakest point since its creation. in 1947 by the National Security Act of 1947. That there is no national security advisor.

or the interim advisor of Marco Rubio, who obviously has three other jobs. And, the. the president doesn't take advice. He doesn't read intelligence. He doesn't get briefed by experts prior to his meetings. He doesn't takes experts with him on his way to his meetings. So we've already lobotomized the U.S. government. We've decapitated our own armed forces,

and we are weakening them simultaneously. And this is a problem because the world is a dangerous place. Russia's being more aggressive along the borders of NATO. Israel is, destabilizing, significant parts of the Middle East. The Iranians are responding to an attack that we made, that hurt them, but has not stopped them. And the development of their nuclear program, there are conflicts elsewhere in the world. China is eyeballing Taiwan as we speak.

And, people in the military consider that to be. the most likely next major conflict. So, you know, it's not like there's nothing to be focused on here. And that is doesn't even begin to address, you know, the fact. that we're in a technological transformation point. where AI and cyber and other kinds of new forms of warfighting, unmanned vehicles and so forth, autonomous unmanned vehicles,

are on the horizon that need. to be developed, that need to be developed with real seriousness of purpose. So having a pep rally in Virginia led by a couple of nitwits, of course, there was actually some sort of military deployment over the weekend, and it wasn't, it wasn't one that was a broader about protecting NATO against Russia. It was 60 National Guards in Oregon were federalized. to go and stand outside, federal buildings in Portland.

I mean, how does that go down at the top of the military and people. who are concerned about national security? We have a very special guest in this new edition of the Daily Beast podcast. I'm honored to be joined by Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. General, thank you for joining us. Thank you for your service. There could be. no better person to talk with about the bizarre spectacle.

we saw unfold on Tuesday at Quantico in Virginia. Just to catch people up. That's what Pete Hegseth, and then Donald Trump. addressed about 800 generals and admirals. It was, frankly, it was really something. Hegseth raged at what he called the Department of War. He went off about troops having beards and perhaps most sinisterly. He talked about the military being an instrument. of overwhelming violence, designed to kill people and break things. He even called rules of engagement stupid. And Trump. Let's be frank, he rambled crooked for more than an hour.

But one part really stood out. That was when he said that what he called dangerous American cities. should be used as a training ground for troops. General, I knew you were watching. I know you were taking notes. I know, importantly, that you were speaking to people who were there with whom you had served. What did they tell you, and what was the big takeaway that you had from this? Well, there were actually, two segments of the of the day. I guess the first one was when Secretary Hegseth, began the presentations,

and then President Trump came in later and and followed up. and there were two very different engagements. I thought, the first one was more of. a, a lecture, by the secretary against these these, hundreds of generals and admirals who had come from all over the world. And before I neglect to say this, the other people in the room, were the command sergeant majors, the master chiefs, the chief.

petty officers, the ones who are probably the closest. to the soldiers, because they've grown up in the ranks. And, yeah, I hate to use this phrase, but they have, a better bullshit detector than most. Yeah, that's part of their training. And so you could tell by just the facial expressions. that this was a session to discipline people, that the the people in the room. were being berated, by the secretary,

the list of things that, he talked about. And I was busily taking notes while he was talking. You know, he started off about the so-called Liberation Day for the military, where we get back to doing our primary job of killing people and breaking things. That, truthfully, to me, is offensive because that is what we. sometimes have to do. But it's not our only mission in life. Then he started talking about the potential for, not following up on the laws of land warfare.

The Geneva Convention rules of engagement didn't make any sense to him. Suggesting women across the board. don't meet the standard he gave the the. I forgot how he mentioned it, but it was something about beard O's, which has to do with, with a, a malady that many soldiers, primarily black soldiers, have that they create a shaving profile for them. And he also talked about one of the things that is suggested to me.

based on a past duty station I had returning to. the days of drill sergeants, smoking recruits and basic training. I could go on and on hue, but those are just some of the big ticket items. Along with the elimination of the Inspector general. I thought that was fascinating because he, in fact, is under investigation for his use of the Signal Labs. So him saying that is is more personal aggrandizement. as well as his, hawking his own book, The War on Warriors,

which was really an, compilation of, thoughts from a disgruntled soldier. So if you put that all in a category. of what he was talking about, it was berating. It was embarrassing. It's something that leaders across any organization don't do. They don't they don't insult in public or, public or discipline in public. They do that privately where they praise in public. That's that's a key factor of leadership.

And yet, Secretary Hegseth was doing this in front of the world on TV cameras. So it it tarnished the reputation of not only those in the room, but I think the reputation of all of our military. And that was just the beginning. Well, I was just going to say there's a few things that you raised. And one of them, I was really very keen to speak to you about this. because you mentioned drill sergeants and, I think he talked about going back to standards.

But you in fact, where I think I just want to get this title right. You were the, the deputy, the first deputy commanding general for national military training. So if there's one person that knows about what makes military. training work and what it shouldn't be, it's you. And I did not did that description of laying hands on recruits. and shark attacks and, not bullying, not booty kept saying. not bullying, but it sounded pretty much like bullying to an outside observer.

It's that it's not what the military should be doing. to people, to 18 year olds that are joining me. Let me answer that. You know, absolutely not. That's what used to be done in the old days. And what I add to that is the old bad days. What we instill in young soldiers in today's army. is their ability to be leaders, to be eventual leaders, to someday. be a sergeant, even if it's a young private.

in basic training they want to aspire to, to to lead others. And we. went away from that type of basic training decades ago. And you're right. I was, deputy commander for training and doctrine Command, but I was the commander of initial military trainee. And in that role, we watched 160,000 civilians come into our basic training. sites every year, and in ten weeks. or so, we would train them to be soldiers.

before they went off to their advanced training in their different specialties. But what I'll tell you is those two years I spent in initial military training, what we call the IMT, were some of the most insightful. I saw some of the most insightful things I ever saw as a soldier. how sergeants will prepare soldiers for the future. And what I'd add to that, Hugh, is. during my. next tours of duty in Europe, commanding forces in Europe, I had an opportunity. to go to Russia several times, and every time I went there,

I saw their approach toward basic training, which was exactly. the one that Secretary Haig Seth described the other day the beating of soldiers, the harassment, the laying hands, the dumping of rooms, the hazing. That's what makes a bad army even worse. So when you talk about the quality of our troops. compared to the Russians, I'll take ours any day. And twice on Sunday. And this was exactly what I found wrong.

with what Secretary Haig Seth was doing. But just let's just. There's so much we could talk about this, but I do. We want to get to talking about the what in. some way should have been the main event, the commander in chief. And, we I do not. think that we actually have a historical precedent for, the, the commander in chief addressing. 800 of the most senior members of the military in public.

It's it's not something that's ever to anybody's knowledge, I think happened before. But what was your take away from what you heard from him? And also what was your take away about his his manner and his delivery? Because this was unusual not just historically, but. usually when Trump addresses hundreds of people, he expects a reaction. And it was very noticeable. You know, I watched I think it was 2.5 hours in total between him and Hegseth.

There was no applause, there was no laughter, there was no, shouts and screams. And this was not like I've watched. I don't know how many hundreds of hours of Trump rallies. This was totally different. How what was your takeaway from that? Yeah, it's interesting here because I'll compare it to a couple of things. First of all, I agree with you completely. President Trump thrives on applause and cheering and interactions with the crowd. and what he received on Tuesday from the soldiers in the room was quiet.

The soldiers and all other services was quiet. Professionalism, and that I took it. as I watched the presentation that rattled him a little bit. But that silence wasn't disrespect. It was restraint and a professional adherence. to standards and the oath of office to not be political. And that was before he. got into his a very meandering bevy of issues. But what I'd like to relay is. I've seen him speak twice before this,

once on television, when he when he spoke to the crowd of 82nd. airborne soldiers at Fort Bragg that were recruited to be, you know, supporters, actually, they were said we are supporters. We want to be close to him. And it turned into a mob scene, and it was anathema. to everything that we would want in our professional military. The second time I saw him in person, was at the West Point graduation. This last May, a thousand.

incoming lieutenants sitting in front of him. And his speech to them was similar to the one. that he gave to the generals and admirals and sergeants majors yesterday. It was meandering. It was insulting. It was it was laced with political diatribes. It was it was, showing how the past administration was horrible. It even got in at West Point to someone, a friend of his trophy wife. And what I watched in those young cadets was stone faces, a stoic look.

No facial expressions, no rolling of the eyes. because they had been reminded of their professional duty. Now, I'm sure there were some in that audience, just like there was yesterday in the general audience. That support President Trump and the things that he's doing. But that's not what we do openly when we're wearing the uniform. as part of the military. So I think you hit the atmospherics absolutely correctly.

It was a tough crowd for him. And even going back to the West Point graduation, there were the graduates in the crowd, and then there were people in the stands. and there were segments of the stands, civilians cheering for him. Okay, they can do that. But the soldiers and the new lieutenants on the field could not and should not, and that's what I think riled him yesterday, because he had an audience of almost a thousand people in that room. who were not going to hooting holler and raise their voices.

Our our columnist David Rothkopf, who I know, you know, wrote, I think somewhat provocatively. And, you know, I think inception in search of reaction perhaps. But he said something that the generals, frankly, should have walked out. that would have been quite a gesture. Is that would that have been wise? No, not at all. That that would have that would have shown their unprofessionalism. And, I mean, even though he offered them that opportunity,

if if there's anybody in that audience that's thinking of resigning. because they can't follow. the legal orders, then they resign later on, they don't do it in a public display of walking out on the president. of the United States, there is the difference between the respect. toward the office of the president and the the person itself. and all of the people in that room have a deep respect. for their commander in chief and the office. They sometimes may not see eye to eye.

And certainly that was the case yesterday with the actual person. I just wanted to get into one of the substantive points that he. he talked about, and I think it's the one that's resonated most, was his discussion, his idea of let's train our troops in what he called dangerous cities. Many people, I think, you. know, might generally say, well, you know, maybe these cities are dangerous. The National Guard seems to be doing a good job in DC,

but spell out you commanded troops. in in real and actual danger. Why should we, for all the dangers? Why is why is the success of the American military. over the last 250 years, predicated on not being used in that way? Well, it's because it's the difference between a police force. and a military force. And, first of all, soldiers. And I'll use that generic term for all the services soldiers. do not get any training on police activities.

other than those who are going to be military police men and women. So you're putting an infantryman, a tanker, a truck driver in front of America's people. And that would be like saying you were and I could go out and and arrest. people and quell riots and do all those kind of things the military does have for, its force, a mission called support for civilian authorities.

If manpower is needed, certainly military forces. can go to an area and protect guard buildings, put up fences, do the kind of things that you need a lot of people to do. But breaking that, that razor's edge into policing activities. again, is contrary to the Constitution and contrary to our laws. So it shouldn't be done. But what I heard the president. say yesterday was an implied remark.

that he was telling. everyone in that room is be prepared to do that. And that only happens, once an insurrection occurs, like during the Civil War. So unless he's prepared to stoke that kind of insurrection. by further dividing the American people and it turns to violence, soldiers are the means of last resort for any kind of police activity, primarily because they're not trained to do things like that. And secondarily because it's against the law.

You you were. but you were in command of troops in many different situations. How would you deal with that order if it was to come to you? What is and what is going to be going through the heads of all those. all those generals and admirals, I should say, when they heard. that imply implication? Yeah, I. believe that each one of them walked out of that room yesterday.

doing a personal analysis of what does this mean for me? And and I know for a fact that there's talk inside the military. ranks of what is the best way. to disobey, and I'm a lawful order. How do you do that? And especially now, given the recent Supreme Court ruling. which holds the president immune from criminal acts, but the people he's. ordering to do these things are subject to those criminal violations.

So how do you say no, especially if the staff judge. advocate, the lawyer chain of command has been disrupted. That the military chain of command from civilian. to military leaders has been co-opted? It was obvious to me in Secretary Haig speech. that he also is all for doing whatever the president orders him to do. And that breaks the the boundaries of what. to previous Secretary of Defenses both Mattis and Esper in the first term,

when they were ordered to do illegal things, they spoke. for the force and said, we don't do that. And it also goes back truthfully to the Bush administration. when there was. and I was in the room when this was happening, when there was conversation about using waterboarding. Right. In Iraq, and the military commanders. and the secretary of defense said, we don't do that, get somebody else. So that mission was actually,

shuttled over to the CIA, to a state to set up the torture sites. And I'm glad that happened, because it would have been a violation. of land warfare by my read of the legal implications of it. How. if you were if you were back in uniform, how do you even begin to process that sort of and how what is. what is the analysis or going to be like for the for those generals? Because. as you say in previous times,

these are the issue of unlawful orders has stopped. at the point of civilian command, but. bringing it down into the chain of military command, is there a precedent for this? Have has this is this something that people have grappled with before or. are we in new territory? You know, I don't think we're in new territory other than the fact. that this is extremely abnormal and the consequences are greater. I've had a couple of instances in my career,

where I've had to go to my bosses and say, hey, I was just issued this order. I think it's either illegal or immoral. And I think we need to talk about that. And, and I usually have my staff judge advocate standing. right next to me to, to to give me the legal implications. Although most commanders at senior ranks have legal. training certainly to to take care of their commands. But in each one of those cases, and I think looking back, I think I did it. three times in each one of those cases, my bosses,

higher ranking officials took my input, said, yeah, you're probably right, this is illegal. Let's change this order. I'm not sure we're going to get the same kind of action. from the current civilian chain. of command, in both the white House and the Department of Defense. I want it on one of the more kind of bizarre aspects of this Trump. address was his, perhaps understanding of the military, or certainly his approach to it.

He talked about how he'd been a fan of, a documentary series. called The Cold War C, which, for those who don't know, I had to check. I will confess it was made in 1953, 1954. It was, of course, black and white at the time, and it was about the US Navy's success in World War Two. and particularly focused, I believe, on battleships, which were, of course, you know, part of. part of the US Navy's success in World War Two was down to battleships.

And Trump went on about how that was what the military should be like. Now, you've distinguished career, commanding many aspects of the military. I'll just put this bluntly. Is it anything like that? Is it anything like an NBC documentary from daytime TV in the 50s here? I think I would probably not surprise you if I said there's an awful lot of people. sitting in the corner, chair of a bar, on a stool somewhere, who have watched a lot of Bands of Brothers or World.

War Two documentaries, who become experts at the military. and sometimes even proclaim to the young women nearby. that they are special operators or special forces. when they would never identify with that, I hope, I hope they're I hope they wear beards because I always wear those. But that's the tail. That's that's for the secretary that either that or a CIA agent, one of the two. But, you know, it's interesting, even. what both. Secretary Haig, Seth and President Trump have said in the past.

about their heroes from the war, and it was from the past wars, and it was represented in the stage they were standing on. I mean, I don't think it was a mistake. Somebody asked for that giant flag to be behind the podium. because it was representative of the early, segments of the patent movie. And President Trump has said on numerous occasion that he loves that movie. Okay, great. But also even Secretary Hegg, who, who,

you know, he he, disrespected. three general officers, Chiarelli. Emily. And there was one other I can't remember who the other one was. And then put in their place. Schwartzkopf MacArthur and Patton. Right. Well, I mean, all all generals have flaws. Don't get me wrong, Patton, when you go into their history, was not a very good leader in terms. He was a very good commander and a war fighter.

He was not a very good leader. MacArthur actually rebelled against the president. So I'm wondering how Trump would feel if if the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. or some combatant commander did something that he wouldn't want to do. So it's it's a real, paucity. of information on the things that they're talking about. And there was even a couple of times, during the Secretary's speech yesterday. where I thought he's talking at this from the standpoint of an Army lieutenant.

He's not even considering the Air. Force, the Navy, the Marines, as part of this force. It's all directed to what his experience was in the Army. And that was really one of the the things that I think alerted. some people when he was nominated for the secretary of defense job, he didn't have the business acumen. to run an organization the size of the Department of Defense. And he didn't have the experience with the services.

So you get all of that came through and it comes through in spades. With President Trump talking about battleships being, the great surface fleet of the U.S. Navy. And any Navy guy will explain to you why that's not such a good idea today, and also objecting to the shape of stealth ships. because he's an esthetics guy, which I assume we're going to see our. our navy painted in gold after that, I don't know,

but more serious like one of the, you know, you talk about being in Russia. You were you commanded the army in Europe for people. First of all, what are people who are allies thinking about this? What did they take? What was the takeaway in Europe? Well, I had I won't go into the details, but I had several of my former. counterparts in other militaries in Europe that I worked very closely with. We continue to stay in contact, and I got several text messages and emails.

yesterday, asking me about what I thought this was doing to the U.S. military and on at least two of the K two occasions, those retired generals from foreign allied forces said to me, I don't understand why this is happening, given how much respect we have. for the capabilities of the US military, specifically the US Army, who they had dealt with.

Why is this even going on? We know the quality and the capability of your soldiers and your leaders. and and you have taught us saying, why would they be going after you now? On what seemingly to them are somewhat silly, and mundane issues. as opposed to national strategy or national security strategy? And the flip side, what do you think has been thought in the Kremlin? What is what what's it for? What's Putin's general staff looking at this and thinking,

well, I think, you know, instead of saying, someone a general staff like Gary Small saying the U.S. military is in bad shape. Look, they have to have their attitude. I think they are saying, that their strategy. of the continued attempt to help divide, the, the people of the, of the US. against themselves and against their institution is working pretty well.

I mean, I'll tell you quite frankly, I was on the air several times yesterday on different cable channels. And, you know, what I could tell is the Russian bots are in full force. in terms of trying to, expand on the messaging that there are. a lot of people that think this is crazy, and it just shows how screwed up the U.S. is, and they're a a waning society and things like that. So to answer your question, in a shorter sentence, they they are loving this because it falls right into what their strategy is.

And one of the developments that happened in the last couple of days. that I imagine the Russians maybe aren't welcoming, but Europe is now talking about having its own drone defense system. They couldn't calling it a drone wall. because of incursions that have been been taking place along the eastern borders. of, of Poland, of clip of Estonia, possibly into Danish airspace. That seems like they wouldn't have been seeing that in the past.

This would have been something that would have been, at the very least, delayed or in cooperation with the United States. And if you just talk to what what people. who have spent careers cooperating with Europe and leading in Europe. have what what view do they take of that. when the Europeans feel they have to go out on their own? When here? When I was the commander of U.S. Army in Europe, we used to have a twice. yearly conference called the CEA in the Conference of European Armies.

And every time we would get together with our counterparts, usually in our headquarters in Heidelberg, one time it was held in Italy. We'd have the 49 countries. of Europe represented over a 2 or 3 day conference. And we would talk about the requirements for our force to partner. better, to exercise on specific things, to really take the, the, the, approach of one is much or.

the whole is much stronger than the sum of the parts. And that was our requirement. And I think today not only are our European allies. doubting the civilian military connections within the US forces, but they're very concerned about the future strategy of U.S. forces in Europe. And and I think part of this whole thing yesterday was a lead.

into the potential of Secretary Hedgepeth issuing a national defense strategy. that really, reduces the focus on areas of the world. where our partnerships are important and our threats are lively. And that strategy, which we there have been reports that it's, it's certainly going to be worth working on. There's a suggestion that it is going to be. focused on the idea that threats are at home. as much as they are, or even more than they are abroad, which does not seem.

to comport with any reality that people would, would, would recognize. And also really de-emphasizing that Russia is in any way a threat. and possibly focusing on China only in the sense of Taiwan. I mean, you've obviously got very hard on a lot of those issues. How what should we. what should we think are the real threats to American national security? Yeah. You know, they're on a yearly basis.

The DNI usually comes out with a threat composite to to tell. where the threats are. The last one that was produced in an unclassified form. was of 19 or 2024, in that it outlined. all of our threats, and it would take me too long to go into them. But the top ten are not being addressed in the manner. they should be by this current administration. All right, general, I know that we are nearing the end of our time. I just wanna say, can you give people some hope here?

I mean, the American military is. by far the most respected institution in the country. Something that the president didn't mention he came to. He came to those generals and he complained about the ratings or. he crowed about the ratings. The press. Have he mocked the ratings that Congress have? He didn't mention that the top rated institution by a margin that, even he would not be able to challenge? Is rigged, is off the charts.

Can you just give people some hope that there is. Yeah, the hope I will give them here is that, yesterday's, atmospherics showed. it was a collective reminder. of the professional culture of the military that transcends politics. The professionalism of the people in that room. And their discipline was on full display in the audience. If not on stage. I think that gives a great deal of hope.

to the future that this institution is bending a little bit. Our military institution is bending a bit because. of some civilian leaders, but it's not breaking. And there's a culture in place that's going to withstand. any kind of attempt to diminish the institution as a whole. General, we hope that you're absolutely right in that verdict. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for taking the time. And again, thank you for your service. And we hope that you'll come back.

and give us more of that insight because it's a fantastic, opportunity to see what really happens inside the American military. And not as described, apparently fat bearded and walk. Okay. So if you're in the cabinet and you're watching this play out. and you understand that a everybody hates Trump around him. and, this is the beginning of the end, as you proclaim,

how are you trying to build your own power base? You've spent a lot of time with politics. You've seen it up close, as you said. Yeah, well, you've spent a lot of time watching it. How would you how do you think this is playing out with. JD Vance and Marco Rubio and and Pete Hegseth? I mean, they're all circling. They're all circling for the job. What is said eight months ago, Pete Heck said, good looking kid. He's articulate. He's got a good television president presence. He would have a shot at the presidency.

Now, after watching his intellectually. vacuous behavior over the last nine months and the deer in the headlights. insecurity that he represents, he's got no shot, okay? And he's going to get run over. He's just not he's not up for the job. Okay. There's so many things that we could be talking about, but I think there's only one topic that has dominated D.C. for the last few days, and that is Pete Hegseth. Yes.

It's it's more than it's, you know, it's multiple topics included in one. But I wanted to start with this, controversy is probably, put it mildly, over the strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs, which was shown to a number of legislators this week. And the many of them came out. and recoiled in horror at what they had seen. I just wonder if you can start with your perspective on this.

Yeah, well, first of all, I was not one of those lawmakers who saw the video. I think it should be obviously made available. to all of us on the Armed Services Committee at a minimum. And at this point probably made public, but, I, I think, look, part of the problem that Secretary Hegseth. has been having in this controversy and the controversy. is just an unwillingness to just kind of own up and be transparent. You know, I worked for many secretaries of defense. under Democratic administrations, Republican administrations.

Stuff happens, right? I mean, stuff you don't want happens, but the buck stops with the secretary. You own up and you say, look, this is what's going on. Here's the accountability. Let me come and talk to Congress about it. Talk to the American people about it. And he seems just allergic to doing that. And it ends up making it a bigger controversy forum. Anyways, on the boat strike, I mean, I think in general, many of us. have been concerned about, you know, us being in an armed conflict. America's in an armed conflict with a list.

of narco terrorists that we're not allowed to see. Right? Even the Armed Services Committee, they won't provide us the list of groups. that we're going after. The legal justification for going after these folks is classified. And even the guys conducting the operations don't get access to it. And then the Intel packages, you know, the sort of showing your math part of, you know, going after this boat or this group, is not there. And, and I will tell you, a lot of us are sympathetic.

to going after these cartels, these these, you know, drug runners. I said openly, come to me. And we need to be more aggressive and more creative. on how we go after these groups. But, I was also involved in the, you know, the operations. against and targeting around al-Qaida and ISIS. And you show your math, you come up to Congress, you say, this is why we're going after this group. This is what they've done. This is who we're targeting, and this is the Intel that that's leading to it. So, they haven't done the basics there.

So I think all we're asking for some basic oversight, as you say, you've been involved in these sort of targeting operations. before, and some people in the major world have been saying, well, Obama did it, that he killed, you know, he killed people from the air. He killed an American citizen, lackey. It is it the same? How do you how do you make a distinction between that sort of that sort of version. and what people have seen or actually haven't seen happening in the Caribbean?

Yeah. Well, I think, you know, certainly. And it's lots of administration. I mean, you know, the Obama Bush, I mean, in a long list, of American presidents. that have authorized targeted operations against terrorists, and, but the terrorist groups usually have a very clear. agenda, stated agenda of targeting Americans, the homeland, our assets abroad and and killing us.

Right. I mean, Al-Qaeda is, I think, the probably the perfect example. But ISIS too, like taking up a whole state and lit in Syria and Iraq, and and wanting to kill Americans and, and attack the homeland. So, what's different about these, the drug traffickers? It's not that what they're doing, isn't reprehensible. It's, are they in active, armed conflict with the United States? Are they coming to kill Americans? And then to me, what I think is really important is these ships that we're targeting,

you know, are these leaders, are these do they have intelligence? Is there something interesting there. that's actually going to help us unwind these cartels? Or are they guys who were paid to take a boat. full of cocaine, you know, from one place to another? So I just think it's a it's a little bit of a different, compare and contrast when you're talking about a group. that is attacked, the United States, like al Qaeda, killed American citizens. and continues to want to kill American citizens versus,

drug cartels, that it can be very dangerous. because of what they ultimately sell inside the United States. But are not, what I would. define as someone in active, armed conflict with the United States. So it's a it's a different. a little bit of a different, apples to oranges sometimes. Do you feel that Hegseth has his head round that difference, or. do you just not know? Because he wouldn't even would even talk to you? I think that that there is a long held desire. to go after these, drug cartels and narco groups.

They what they sell, what they bring into the United States. and how they fund their organizations do affect millions of Americans. And so I'm sympathetic to wanting to really step that up. And it was clear. they came into this administration, like, how are we going to do that? There are about, 100 different ways I can think of. to be way more aggressive without just the, the, the strikes. Right? I mean, like I said, I like the intelligence that comes off of these folks. I like to grab the leaders.

and understand how they communicate and who runs the show. and how do they get their weapons and how do they do. that, you know, how do they move drugs? So there's a bunch of different ways to do it. But what's clear is in the past, just kind of identifying these things. and not doing anything about it also wasn't working for the United States. You know, Donald Trump often has the wrong answer to the right question, right? He often picks up on the right kernel of thing that we need to address. But his his solutions are, yes, just take us just to me,

to a very different place. So, I think we had to do more against these drug cartels, but just show your math. If you think we need to be in in an armed conflict like this, Donald Trump. and his questions and his answers, it appears he is after you as well, rather directly with Haig's US, you and a group of Democratic lawmakers. spoke in a video telling members of the armed forces. they do not have to be illegal orders. When you were talking about that, did you have in mind what was going on in the Caribbean? Yeah, I mean, we made that video, you know, three weeks ago or whatever it was.

Certainly not thinking that the president would go high and right, as we say. at the Pentagon on it like that. But, because there was so many people coming to us. who were, you know, on active duty, who were recent veterans, family members. of service members who were coming to us individually and, saying two things. One, I'm concerned, you know, I'm going to be sent, in uniform to an American city, you know, like LA, Chicago, Memphis.

And I'm going to be asked to do things I'm either don't think are legal. or I'm not trained for, and that's what do I do. And then this fall, it really turned. And it became a lot of people who were involved in the operations, around the Caribbean asking those same things. Hey, I'm not sure they I don't know if this is legal. I don't know if I'd be held accountable later after this administration. I can't get a straight answer about whether this is legal or not. What do you think we should do?

So we were hearing that, there's a lot of juju. in the system on that, for, for months. And so that's why we made the video just restating the Uniform Code. of Military Justice and, you know, it just you never know. And it happens in a week when the Epstein files are approved. for release and all these things. And so the president wants to talk about something else. But I think the reaction to it. tells you more about them than it does. about the six of us who made this pretty simple video.

You know, the best commentary I heard was from someone saying, if you walk into a crowded bar and someone yells, hey, ugly! And you turn around, you're probably ugly, right? And I think that was to me, their reaction number one of, calling for us to be arrested, investigated, and then ultimately hung, you know, when the president. of the United States threatens you with death, we shouldn't be surprised. when people across the country do that and worse.

So the the threat picture completely changed for all of us. You know, we all have 24/7 security. And we had bomb threats at my house and my family's been targeted. But then the second shoe to drop was weaponizing the federal government. against people who you disagree with. Right. So getting the FBI and pushing the FBI to do some sort. of inquiry or investigation, obviously, one of us, is now being looked at for a military investigation. So to me, regardless of whether someone agrees with our video or not,

I think do we think it's normal and okay. it for the president, to threaten people with, with death. and weaponize the federal government just when he disagrees with them. and said a lot of people, especially back home, say, look, I don't. I didn't like that you made that video or I didn't agree with your video, but. you shouldn't be targeted for death because of that. Have you even heard from the FBI yet? The FBI reached out. This is all public.

The FBI reached out, through the Senate and House. You know, sort of. legal advisers or legal folks. And, you know, asking seemingly to start an inquiry. And we're waiting. We're kind of in the back and forth. We're waiting to hear what they're going to do. And, you know, I will, wait to see what the next step is, but there's there's certainly, take. took some action and reached out to us here officially. Yes.

And how do you even respond to that? I mean, you know, as you say, presents threatening people with death. is an incredibly crazy thing to happen. What goes on inside your head when that happens? I think for me, I think, you know, most of us certainly aren't. The six of us who did that video have served in dangerous places. We've we've felt under threat before. I think that the thing that's different. is when it's targeting your family or, your staff. Right? I mean, that's a I signed up for this,

and this, you. know, but, you know, the the second part of it is like, I just I don't think anyone is proud of our politics right now. And I think the majority of Americans, no matter what side of the aisle. they're on, I don't think that we should be threatening each other. with death, and arrest when we disagree with each other. So I'm sort of, you know, I'm all right, but I'm just sad for the country that this is the point we've come to.

And it shouldn't be that if you decide to run for office, you should just expect, this kind of weaponization of the government. That's not something that I think we want. Again, no matter whether you're Democrat or Republican. Just to turn. to the other aspect of this week with Hegseth. It was obviously also we've had the report in the signal gate. and you were talking about, you know, the stretching, the stretching, the norms might be putting it charitably about threatening people with death.

But in Signal Gate, it seems that Pete Hegseth used this signal chat. He copied over secrets into it. And then his defense was, well, I get to declassify things. Yeah. Secret. How concerned are you about one wolf for having one wolf for everybody else? Yeah. I mean, I think again, there's sort of a, there's a the legal set of issues, but also there's just the leadership issues. And, you know, just to be clear, if you if any rank and file soldier,

put in an unclassified email on a commercial app, the time, location and type of military operation. that was going to go on in the next 2 to 4 hours, they'd be. fired, there'd be an investigation. There'd be an absolute accounting for that because they put people at risk. And actually, if the Secretary had just said. that, you know, if he had just said that months ago. in May and just said, you know what, I was moving fast.

These were operations that were going on in real time. I was trying to keep people informed. I made a mistake. I own up to it the way I would want any young officer or enlisted to own up to it. I swear to God, we wouldn't be talking about it right now, right? Just like it could have been a one time on camera thing. And and I'm going to, you know, redouble my efforts to only use the correct systems. But I certainly would be done with it if he had just done that. So there's the legal issue of, you know, I'm, I'm the secretary of defense.

And so just by me writing it into an email, I'm declassifying, I think that's real questionable. Their proper procedures for declassifying things. And. but then secondly, it's just more of a leadership climate thing. Just you're, you're trying to set an example. for the million people that you represent in the Defense Department. And any of them, I mean, the the best commentary again, I saw on that back when it happened was I have a close friend whose spouse was.

on one of the destroyers that was involved in those operations off Yemen. And she said, if we we as spouses know. that we can't put that kind of information out into the world. It's just like, understood thing. The Facebook group for the spouses would never deign to put. the type, location and timing of an attack on the open internet. And the Secretary of Defense did it. So just just on it and we could have moved on. Is there going to be some sort of accountability for this? Can you see that coming in some shape or form?

I think that that this report. and the fact that we're all talking about it right now. openly is probably the the, the only accountability we're going to get. And I'm glad that the IG did the investigation. I think, you know, it's a low bar these days on on you know, IGS were all fired Jags were all fired. So I'm glad that it happened. But I don't expect there's going to be much more formal accountability. Now, I know you've, you you tweeted about this, earlier in the week,

the hypocrisy involved in this as well, that Pete Hegseth, before. he was in office, had certainly been somebody who spoke about, obeying the laws of the laws of war. And he also, of course, as a Fox commentator, repeatedly went after Hillary Clinton for her server. I was just when you finally get to talk to him, are you going to raise this with them? And it seems it seems like almost a hallmark of his behavior now that there's.

there's the past Hegseth in this present Hegseth. Yeah, I think it it's not just the secretary. I think that this is a sort of characteristic. of a lot of people in Washington, which is there is no real center. of gravity on an issue, you know, if something is unlawful. For you, because you're my political enemy, then I'm going to beat the drum on that. But if it's if it's not appropriate, but it's my team, I'm. going to defend it till the last. Right. And I think what's hard, especially in national security,

is there are really things where you have to be able to call balls and strikes. It doesn't matter what political party the president's from, you know, a threat to the United States. is a threat to the United States and military operation. You have to be straight about these things. And I think that's what's difficult. Is that Pete Hegseth is the secretary of defense, right? He's not some commentator on Fox who could just flip. or a political, you know, guy who. who was working, supporting the president on political stuff.

He's the secretary of defense. So we expect more from someone who's in charge of the greatest. fighting force in the world. And so it just sticks out more. But that that's that that inability to just call a spade a spade. when you see it, on tough issues, you know, that this is like, what I'm trying to say to all these folks is like, I'd be with them. on some pretty aggressive things around the narco traffickers in the Caribbean. I'm like, I'm here for some of that.

But you can't just get to pick and choose facts, and you can't pick and choose right and wrong just based on who said it. You got to have a center of gravity. As the secretary of Defense, I noticed, by the way, in the subject of I'm. not calling things by their name. You're not calling him Secretary of War, which I should say the Daily Beast does not recognize either. So, but it seems like. renaming things, rebranding things. seems to be part of the part of the pattern here.

Yeah. And I think I think, I mean, the secretary of defense, is the name you can call yourself something different. But, you know, we went back and looked in the power to rename things right? Because, before it was the secretary of defense, before. it was the Department of Defense, it was the Department of War. right back in World War Two era. And Congress changed the name after a big discussion. So, the Congress hasn't changed the name. It's the secretary of defense. And, you know, people can call themselves.

what they want, but I'm going to follow the law. Have you had more people coming to you after this video? And in the wake of what's happened in the Caribbean, have more people been raising concerns about lawful orders with you? I'll just give you a perfect example. Last night, 7:30 p.m. last night, I was at an event, and, this, young man. who works here in Washington, came up to me, pulled me aside after the event, you know, got out of earshot and said, I just wanted to thank you. I'm part of, National Guard, you know, in the Midwestern state.

and, I'm an Intel officer, and I just went to a training, and all. of my fellow Intel officers are worried that we're going to be asked to do. Intel collection and exploitation inside the United States, right? That the skills we learn. to protect against foreign adversaries, which is the job that we're now. maybe going to be asked to do that inside a detention facility or inside. somewhere in, you know, the United States with American citizens.

So this is someone and he said everyone was talking about it. That was the conversation quietly in the corners of the training. So there's this is this is not coming out of nowhere. And certainly since we made the video, people have been finding their way to us, just to say, hey, we've been expressing this angst amongst ourselves. Thank you for saying something. And it certainly I mean, I have to say it, I didn't expect it, but it certainly helped prompt a conversation. That's, I think, is an important conversation about the use of force in America.

You know, how do we use our military? And, I just feel very strongly that, one of the worst things. that can happen from any administration, but from this one in particular, is that American citizens doubt their military. They don't trust, you know, if you see someone in uniform, in your city and they're asked to do something they're not trained for, and the president has been open. He said, we're going to use our cities as training grounds. He said it in front of 800, you know, general officers, that,

you know, American citizens. want the military to be protecting them from foreign threats. Given our history, we do not want our military, you know, participating in things like arrest and detention and crowd control ins. and having potential escalation in American cities. To me, that is a real strategic risk to, the role of the military, which I love. How much of this is a success and how much of it is just Trump? I think a lot of it is coming from the white House,

and I think the president and this administration different. I think a little bit from his last administration, he's really just picking. people for jobs who are going to do whatever he says, right? I don't think he's looking for that, like kind of pushback and that. the things that like, you know, most CEOs will say they're looking for, right? I want someone who will push back on me and tell me when I'm going off course. I don't think this administration, he's looking for that. And we've seen in the folks who have come up, you know, I voted for. some of Trump's nominees, especially on uniformed military side,

because I've known some of these folks, and I want someone in there who's. going to uphold the values that I believe in and uphold the Constitution. But so many of these nominees that come through every day. are just, yes, men who are who are literally chosen, to do whatever. the president is going to say above anything else, including above their oath. In the last Trump administration, 2019, you were one of the Democrats, who came out quite early calling for him to be impeached on the Ukraine phone call.

And I'm just wondering how how does this compare this time around? Is, is that on the table? Was that is that for your mind goes or is this something. that it's three years and we have to find ways through it. You know back then the there was the Democrats had the House. of Representatives, you know, I mean, I think there was there was tools there. And, I think you look, he, he went through two impeachments,

and certainly the second one, you know, given. that he incited, a riot and the, the, you know, the armed, engagement of in this building where I'm sitting right now. I mean, so there are. there are important strategic things that he has done. I, I would be happy with just basic oversight. from my Republican colleagues in the committees that they chair. They I've watched them. cede basic, basic, oversight responsibilities.

I think sometimes about what John McCain would be doing. as chairman of the Armed Services Committee if he was alive today. And, all I want is basic oversight. I'm not looking for them to get into a fight just to get into a fight. I'm looking for them to do oversight over something. that's fundamental to who we are as Americans. So, I don't think impeachment is really on the table, to be honest. I, I'd be thrilled with basic oversight. How did you get your colleagues to go along with that?

I mean, there they obviously, as you say, they've ceded those opportunities. How do you get that back? Look, I think some of my colleagues have been very open about fear. that they're literally acting out of fear. They're there. And now that I've been on the receiving end of it, I understand why that can be an effective tool. We can't let it govern our politics. That's the worst case scenario. But a lot of my colleagues will say openly, including to the press, if we go against Trump, you know, they're going to he's going to weaponize.

the political system and potentially the federal government. against us and death threats and my family and the whole thing. Okay. The only thing more powerful, I think, to a lot of elected officials, then that sense of fear is the fear of losing their own elections. And I think what the only chance I see right now, of a real wholesale change is if people feel like President. Trump is a liability to them as elected officials, rather than, a bonus.

And, you know, I think the elections we had a month ago, the elections that they had in Tennessee, obviously. the midterm elections will be a very important indicator. That, to me is. I would not be surprised if you'd see, more, sort of strength. from my Republican colleagues correlated to the fact that that, Trump. is maybe more of a boat anchor than a help to their election. His polling is obviously looks in that direction. No good from a swing state or what is seen as a swing state.

What's your feeling about where that's going to go? You know, I just don't think it's really rocket science. The Democrats at the top of the ticket lost Michigan this last time. because, the public perceived. that Trump was more focused on cost of living than the Democrats. And that's still the galvanizing issue. That is, whether you're in Manhattan or Kansas or Michigan or whatever, that whether people can afford.

the American dream or not is the galvanizing issue of our time. And, when President Trump gets into a cabinet meeting and says openly. that, quote, affordability is a Democratic hoax, people are not stupid. They were talking about affordability when they had a Democrat in office. Right. And and I've been open like Joe Biden tried to tell people for a year, you know, that the economy was better than it actually was. People know their own pocketbooks. They may not know fancy policy positions going on in Washington.

They know how much their family saves and spends. every month, and they know if they're able to save, to get ahead. And so, the to. me, the the issue of those midterm elections polling is fine. You know, we are all, you know, that's all we have. So we cling to it. I guess what is much more important to me. is what is the economic situation going on in my state, and what are the policies doing to improve or hurt their situation. And that that's going to be. that's how they're going to vote, just like they did last time.

Does this issue about about strikes and about what Hegseth is doing. is that cutting through it? You hear it from voters, you know, some. But any day of the week people are like, can we just stop the chaos. so that someone can lower our costs. electricity, health care, housing, groceries and food services, something. Right. So as much as I'm a national security person by training. and so I find these issues important, I do think they're important to who. we are as Americans.

Nothing comes close to the level. of urgency on affordability and the American dream. Nothing. Well, it's finished on census block. And thank you for joining us. It's been fascinating and educational and we would love to have you back anytime. Thanks so much. You. Know, we've heard. from a very powerful civilian about what the military think. Delighted to say we are now joined by someone who knows exactly what it takes. to be at the top of the military.

Major General Paul Eaton is one of our country's most distinguished soldiers. He is now speaking out in a way his comrades are still serving, cannot. General, thank you for joining us. There's so much that we could talk about. But I wanted to talk first about somebody. that you have been very critical of the. the defense secretary or the self-styled secretary of War, Pete Hegseth. He has had an extraordinary week.

And I know that you are somebody that, has raised warnings about him before this week. He's been. found to be. using he used his signature account to pass on what he said were not secrets, but clearly were the secrets of some war plans. And he was also involved in the aftermath of this, strike on a boat from Venezuela in the Caribbean. Just tell us, what is your view of this performance this week?

If I were rating, Mr. Access, as a superior officer, he would be out of a job. He has consistently. demonstrated that, he does not have the gravitas. He does not have the experience. He does not have the mindset. He does not have the ethical base. to, to perform the duties expected of the secretary of defense.

And he is demonstrating this on a daily basis. You bring up signal gate. He, my my father was a fighter pilot fought in Vietnam. And, the level of detail that, Mr. Hicks has put out in a public space would have given gunners. in, in Vietnam plenty of opportunity to prepare, the worst they could deliver to, men like my dad. And so that is just.

a fundamental failure to understand the seriousness of the job, the fact that, he would declare, murder on the high seas. and issue instructions that have been taken down. I mean, we're going to see everything in the analysis because we've got. the Republicans on board right now to, to get to the bottom of, the so-called double tap that, he invoked back in September.

I go, I gather. Do you think he Pete Hegseth is the person that's ultimately responsible here, or do you think if this goes up to Trump, I don't know. What I do know is that, Mr. Haig has issued instructions. that, leave no doubt, in the mind of the recipient and those who heard them that, that it's. either, an authorization for a murder. or a, war crime.

And whether it goes to, to Mr. Trump, you might make the point that from an emotional perspective and setting. the emotional and ethical groundwork, he is the senior man in our government. And he has set the tone for everybody who, reports to him. And he has set an unethical tone. He has set an immoral tone. He has set a lawless tone, to those in his employ.

And that is, more of an emotional nature. associated with the, behaviors that we see from Mr. Eggs. So, clearly, as commander in chief, we know that Donald Trump. has some degree of immunity, but you've warned yourself, that there can be consequences for those who do not have immunity. And one of those people is Hegseth. I just want to tell me, take me. Take us inside the kind of the military mind here, Fort.

Ford, to somebody who wears the uniform when they are presented. with this sort of order, what goes through their mind? If it smells bad, don't do it. If it smells bad, go to your lawyer. And to be clear, lawyers give advice. They do not give directive. and lawyers, if they smell something bad, they have recourse to go to the legal chain of command above them.

And that brings a greater understanding into the whole mix. And if, if necessary, advice from hide. And, what we've got right now is a, a chain of command that is looking over its shoulder. And I think the Wall Street Journal published, it's a very lonely place to be in an American foxhole right now, because you definitely don't have the backing of the civilian leadership.

How do you process that? It just takes inside that that mindset. Have had you ever been in a scenario where you felt that you had been presented. with an illegal order, or is this so outside the norm of, of of the military experience that these are generals. and admirals are dealing with really unprecedented situations? It is unprecedented operational experience from, my perspective, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq,

I was blessed. with terrific military. leadership and civilian leadership. I was never asked to do anything untoward. or even close to the line of legality. The the men and women, in those commands and subordinate to me left and right. Had the clear backing of the chain.

of command and understand. the higher commanders retain authority and responsibility. for everything that happens or fails to happen. in the operations in their area of operations. So I, I see what's going on right now. as unprecedented. And I believe that, our uniformed military. is in a very tough position, and I will be very interested.

to hear what. Admiral Halsey, the former South Com commander, whose retirement will take effect within days. I'll be very interested to hear him. provide advice or observations. on what's going on right now. And, observations. around his early retirement.

and how he interacted with outside agents, either letter to agencies or our Special Operations Command. Because. the South Com. commander has an area of operations, he commands and is responsible. for everything that happens or fails to happen in that AOE area of operations. Outside actors coming in. are operating in his AOR, our area of responsibility,

and they are executing missions. in a different command line, all of which makes the four star admiral. in command of South Gump's life more difficult. And I would love to see. some analysis and observations from. a great retired Admiral Halsey.

One thing that has stood out in this is that this this strike, the first strike of the well, I was going to the first strike, but the fact the first and second strikes of the. the same campaign, for want of a better word, we now know overrun by seal team six and through Special Operations Command. Did that strike you as kind of off or odd? It seems to the outside observer, you might say. that seems like not quite what we all understood. Seal Team six was about. Well, it's.

to me the the issue is. somebody operating in my area. Now, if you are the South Comm commander, what are the command links. between the South Comm commander and the. So com the special operations Command? How where are the coordinating points. between those two four star commands?

One owns the air. One is operating in the air. separate from the chain. of command of South Comm. This is not a new dilemma. We had this, you may recall, Blackhawk Down, of course. That incident, the the fact the special operation or, special operations, command was operating in an AOR that belonged.

to conventional army and. what were the coordinating points as far as supporting fires. or supporting activities or if necessary, exfiltration facilitation? All of that seemed to indicate. that all was not particularly clear. to the commanding general of the air or Mogadishu.

And this is this is not a new problem. And it's not because we're trying to make mistakes. It's just. you can go after the fog of war. It's just complicated. And I don't know what those arrangements were between South Comm and so. Com and what's going on? Killing boats in the Caribbean. Do you think it's it's a legitimate use of of of of the United States forces.

That's that's the starting point here. No, no. Absolutely not. I live in Key West. We have a robust, Coast Guard, operation going on here. And very recently, you saw on the news that, one of our cutters stopped. a, a ship or a boat and, recovered some $300 million worth of cocaine. And our guys on the coast.

Guard are very well trained in. boat operations at sea. How to stop, how to present, how to board. And they know how to operate within U.S law, which is applicable in international waters. And when the Coast Guard shows up, they show up with the full force. of American legal systems, and they do it without any problems.

They don't go in killing people, they go in. and if necessary, they arrest people. And in the case of this recent activity, I believe. that after questioning the crew in question, they delivered them back to, I believe that could or. I believe that was their, their homeland after recovering the contraband. So America knows how to do this. This is the purview of the Coast Guard. If the Coast Guard is overwhelmed by activity level,

let's give them some more tax dollars so that they can expand their operation. This is not what I want the American Navy to do. We can do it. But they are not manned, trained and equipped to do it. in concert with U.S. law on in international waters. I presume you you hear obviously from you know, your friends.

from people that you served with that are still in uniform. What's the mood inside the military about this? What we've got going on right now is Whac-a-mole going on in the Caribbean. And the people I hear from are looking. for a traditional explanation. of what is my task. and what do you expect me to deliver on that task? And that's not happening. What we are getting is looking for high speed boats.

and killing high speed boats without an explanation. Are they just fishermen. from Venezuela who have been threatened? Either harm to family or harm to themselves? Have they been forcibly employed to move cargo, which, again, the South com. chain of command has failed to make the case to the American public.

that what we are doing in Venezuela and north of Venezuela, in the international waters is, is a valid task for U.S. armed forces. What advice do you give to people in that in that situation, if Pete Hegseth and his civilian command can't define a mission, does it then fall to the military to work it out? Or do they have, you know, do they have any ability to do that themselves?

So when you are given instructions. or intent from a higher commander before you leave the room, you've got to have crystal clarity and what it is that you were told to do. If you. leave the room, you have failed in your job, failed. in your duty to your peers and subordinates, and what the U.S. military has to do and I again. invoke the name of Admiral Halsey,

who appeared to be uncomfortable. to the point where he dropped his retirement papers. Retirement. or resignation. or options when you were presented with inappropriate. or illegal orders, do you feel there's more that's going to happen? More? It's almost the perfect moral dilemma for somebody who's held.

a rank like yours, that. they have risen to that level because they are crystal clear in their. in their own command structure under then presented with. an impossible situation. I empathize with the men and women. in leadership positions in our armed forces, because I have never seen a more fraught nature.

of civilian military relations in my life. I was. 18 years old in 1968. when the Tet Offensive occurred. and when Walter Cronkite, effectively. ended the war. It took years to truly end it. But we asked the men and women. in our armed forces during the Vietnam War to do the impossible.

The mission was vague. The rules of engagement kept changing, and we were operating with a, forced, service, a conscription environment, and, young. men and women were forced into a situation. that, was extremely difficult. we are embarking upon.

So we have embarked upon, a a very difficult situation. for our armed forces and, only our Congress, our first branch, only our Congress can help the men and women of the armed forces. And every American citizen can join in on that help. by contacting their representative and their two senators.

and ask the question, what the hell is going on in the Pentagon? Civilian leadership? That's the question. We saw some oversight in the last few days from the inspector general. on the signal gate report, and it painted a picture, which I think anybody would agree was pretty damning, that the Secretary of defense. or self-styled secretary of war, the secretary of defense, was basically cutting and pasting secrets and putting them in an unsecured format.

And there seemed to be. a there was a defense on offer of, well, I just get to declassify things. in that sort of environment. How how effective even as Congress to to deal with that contempt. essentially for the checks and balances that are already in place. And I should say, I know that you've tweeted about the. the ultimate point that, there is the possibility of action. after after Hegseth has left office on accountability.

Indeed. And the real power that Congress. holds is the power of the purse, and it requires a concerted effort. to require the, the military leadership, civilian and and uniform to, report for interrogation in Congress,

interrogations, the harsh word, but that's what it is. And then it is a real threat. to withhold monies for operation. And it is a, that they have the power of the purse. That denial is, is a very difficult step. for anybody to make with the armed forces deployed at risk. But, our our system is not working right now, and,

we don't have. Richard Nixon to ultimately say, well, I will retire. I will resign, from the, from the presidency. We're not getting that behavior from the world of Margaret. And I don't expect it to, to show up. But the the nature of, a a requirement to come in.

and brief Congress and two of the most unhappy men. I've seen lately were Admiral Bradley. and General Kane walking into, a congressional office to undergo. what they knew was going to be a series of most unpleasant questions. But it to your, to your question, it's not going to be an immediate fix to what is developing.

into a very big problem for our own forces. And that problem might develop further if there's an escalation. We keep hearing, aggressive language from the president. about Venezuela, about land action there. You obviously were involved in and something, you know, not dissimilar in terms of going into Somalia. And you train troops in Iraq. What advice would you offer.

on going into Venezuela? Careful as you go. Words are easy to start. They take on a nature of their own very quickly. The the men and women who are going to be at risk. And all of this, deserve better than what they're getting right now. How dangerous do you feel it is for the military at the moment. from a civil military danger? Extraordinary. When you start looking left and right and you don't trust. the fellow left or right because of informal links.

with the civilian leadership, are you going to be, Cast as, as a failure to honor the, the chain of command, or are you going to be cast as an apostate. in a, in a world that is essentially a cult that, Mr. Trump has established? That's a great danger.

The danger at the tactical level. is no fellow ever went into a deliberate attack. with 100% intelligence. pictures, nature of the objective. So it is what don't we know. about what it is we've been asked to do as far as capacity. to, to execute the mission and and get back home safe.

And we've also obviously had the president talking. in that speech to to the entire, general. And the general. was good to the General Staff, in fact, to every general and admiral, he talked about using American cities as training grounds. That's obviously something that people have viscerally reacted to. But in that context of the major chain of command, what what can you do if you are ordered into that sort of situation? I would like to shout out to every man.

and woman in that auditorium, their behavior, their silent hands on their knees, stoicism. in the face of to unruly, disrespectful civilian leaders. Hats off to them. As for what they can do, they have an oath to the Constitution and they have.

an obligation to every man and woman in their command. to do everything that they can to ensure. that their men and women in their command. are taken care of, that they are safe and sound. and that. they will not get stupid orders. And if it means to do what the distinguished Admiral Halsey did.

where he said, I am not willing to do your bidding, I am retiring. This magnificent man, owes America a little bit more information. about what happened and what drove him to what he did. You're obviously confident that he is going to provide that information. I believe that a man with his experience,

with the full faith that America plays in him. by promoting him to four star admiral, that he will do the right thing. General, we would all hope that people would do the right thing as you have done. We want to thank you for thank you for joining us. Thank you for your service. Thank you for, offering such an extraordinary insight. into how the military deals with this. incredibly unprecedented situation.

And I just wanted to finish by asking, can you. perhaps offer us some hope that, that we are not going to see things get worse? I have great faith. in the men and women in the United States military. I have watched distinguished. civilian leadership. I expect that we will be back there soon enough.

And to, borrow from a movie, the time for flattering yourself, Emperor will soon come to an end. Well, I hope you can come back to discuss it with us when it does. General, thank you so much for joining us. And, we look forward to hearing from you again in the future. I'm flattered to be included. Be well, thank you, sir. Looking back across these conversations, one thing is clear. Trump's vision of command his loyalty and spectacle is unlike anything.

the US military or the country has ever faced. From misguided parades to pep rallies that make generals cringe, from loyalty tests that confuse strategy with flattery. The former military leaders, former Trump staffers and journalists. we've spoken to make it clear the military is navigating. The nation is paying attention. But Trump remains trapped in a fumbling world of his own creation. Understanding what happened and what could happen next.

isn't just fascinating. It's vital. So big thank you to Sandra Clark, methinks. Travels with Karl Andrew Beaver, Captain Peter, Harry Clark, Dawn McCarthy, Daniel doc, M Greiner, Fulvia, Orlando, herby, Andrew Miller, or Mel. Or as Michael always says last, Condé bonds over I love Francisco, Andrea. Hodel, Bo Kok DC, Sharon Shipley, Connie Rutherford, Karen White and Heidi Riley.

Thank you to our production team. Devin Roger Reno, Annabelle Nelson, and Jesse Millwood.