Trump Hid Sinister Message in Speech to Generals | The Daily Beast Podcast

One that resonated most was his discussion, his idea of let's train our troops in what he called dangerous cities. What are the dangers? Breaking that that razor's edge into policing activities. again, is a 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. Welcome to the Daily Beast podcast. I'm Hugh Daugherty, executive editor of the Daily Beast. I'm keeping the seat warm for John, who calls. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for your many comments. Please keep them coming. We love them. Thank you especially to everyone who commented. on the last edition of the Daily Beast podcast, where my guest was. the unmissable Daily Beast columnist David Rothkopf.

I remember Tanya UN and put it best. David Rothkopf is brilliant and he will be back soon. because he is always full of insight and even reassurance in troubling times. Thank you also to those of you who understood my accent. and said nice things about it. Apologies to those still struggling with it. I am lobbying YouTube for simultaneous translation. I will let you know, although you may not understand me when I say it. 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 Woke. 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. He croaked 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 knew you were taking notes. I knew, 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 Haig Seth, 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 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 engagements 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 in basic training. I could go on and on hue, but those were 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 apps. 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 what it shouldn't be.

It's you and it did that 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 not it's not what the military should be doing. to people to 18 year olds that are joining me. Let me emphatically 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 Hegseth 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 Hegseth was doing. But just let's just the so much we could talk about this, but but I knew we want to get to talking about the war in some ways. 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 takeaway from what you heard from him? And also what was your takeaway 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 did 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, and the soldiers and all other services was quiet. Professionalism, and that I took it as I watched the presentation. That rattled them 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, very meandering bevy of issues. But what I'd like to relay is. I'd 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 in search of 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, I you know, maybe these cities are dangerous. The national Guard seems to be doing a good job in D.C., but 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 an unlawful 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 speech. that he also is all for doing whatever the president orders him to do. And that breaks the the boundaries of what. two previous Secretary of Defense's Bush, 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 agents 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 a now, what is. what is the analysis going to be like for the for those generals? Because. as you say in previous times, these on. the issue of unlawful orders has stopped, the, 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 and 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 wanted one of the 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. See? 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 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 is down to battleships. And Trump went on about how that was what the military should be like. Now, you've a distinguished career, commanding many aspects of the military. I just put this bluntly. Is it anything like that? Is 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, I hope they wear beards because I. Always wear. My that's the tail.

That's what that's what the secretary of 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 Patton movie. And President Trump has said on numerous occasions that he loves that movie. Okay, great. But also even Secretary Hecht's crew, who, you know, he, he, disrespected. three general officers, Chiarelli, Milley. And there was one other and I can't remember who the other one was, and then put in their place Schwarzkopf, 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 can all of that came through and 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 seriously, one of the, you know, you talked 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 for what 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 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 U.S. military, specifically the U.S. 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 is being thought in. the Kremlin? What is well, what's what's Putin's general staff looking at this and thinking. Well, I think, you know, instead of saying, someone a general South like Gerasimov 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 military of the U.S. 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. and calling it a drone wall.

because of incursions that have been been taking place along the eastern borders. of, of, say, Poland, 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 you just talked 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 a commander of U.S. Army in Europe, we used to have a twice. yearly conference called the CIA and 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 Haig Seth 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 what they harden a lot of those issues are how.

what what should we what, what should we think. are the real threats to American national security? Yeah. You know, they're 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 want 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 the generals and he complained about the ratings. or he screwed about the ratings. The press. Have he mocked the ratings at Congress?

How 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. Not as described, apparently fat bearded and walk. Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate being on with you. Thank you very.

That was a great. conversation with one of our most distinguished military leaders. And we couldn't. bring you conversations like those without the support of our members. Thank you. Especially to our BBC level members Karen White, Heidi Riley, Connie Rutherford, Sharon Shipley, Andrea Dale and free DC. It couldn't be easier to become a member and the perks are, as Trump might say, like you've never seen before. Don't forget to subscribe. to our other podcast, Inside Trump's Head for Michael Wolff and Joanna calls.

Explain what's really going on in that dark space which we all seem to inhabit, to keep up to date with what's happening at the Pentagon, what's happening in the white House, who's shaving their beard, who's struggling with the stairs. Please subscribe to the Daily Beast at Daily beast.com. Thank you to our producers, Devin Roger Reno and Donovan Newsome. and our editor, Jesse Millward. And as the first lady almost certainly does not see. But Joanna always does. Beast.