Toward the end of his tenure, Gen. Mark Milley, who was the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2019 to 2023, told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that Donald Trump was a fundamental threat to the safety and integrity of the United States.
“No one has ever been as dangerous to this country as Donald Trump,” the general told Woodward. “Now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country.”
Let’s stop for a second.
It is simply extraordinary that the nation’s top general would tell anyone, much less one of the most famous reporters in the world, that the former president of the United States was a “fascist” — a “fascist to the core,” even — and a threat to the constitutional order. There is no precedent for such a thing in American history — no example of another time when a high-ranking leader of the nation’s armed forces felt compelled to warn the public of the danger posed by its once and perhaps future chief executive.
More important than the novelty of Milley’s statement is the reality that he’s right.
News of the general’s 2023 assessment broke on Oct. 11. That afternoon, and as if to prove the point, Trump dove even deeper into the rhetorical abyss, telling his followers that he would deploy an 18th century law to “liberate” the country from immigrants once and for all. “I make you this vow: November 5th, 2024 will be LIBERATION DAY in America,” Trump wrote on the social platform X.
“I will rescue Aurora and every town that has been invaded and conquered — and we will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail or kick them the hell OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.” And “to expedite removals of this savage gang,” he continued, “I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American Soil.”
To be clear, the Alien Enemies Act — one of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts signed by President John Adams — does not distinguish between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants and foreign nationals, a distinction that did not exist at the time of passage. This means that any immigrant deemed an “enemy alien” by the Trump administration could be subject to arrest and removal by the federal government.
To make this a reality, Trump says, “we will send elite squads of ICE, border patrol, and federal law enforcement officers to hunt down, arrest, and deport every last illegal alien gang member, until there is not a single one left.” And as he explained later in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News, this crusade wouldn’t stop with immigrants. “I always say, we have two enemies,” Trump said, adding: “We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries.”
There is both a temptation and a tendency to dismiss all of this as just tough talk, the empty promises of one of the most dishonest men to ever sit in the Oval Office. Even his supporters, as my New York Times newsroom colleague Shawn McCreesh discovered, are inclined to treat his words and statements as something other than actual speech — utterances that convey feeling, not meaning. (Why anyone would want this kind of person in the White House is a separate question.)
This, as I’ve argued again and again, is a mistake. Presidential rhetoric corresponds to presidential action; it precedes and defines it. What a candidate says on the campaign trail connects to what he (or she) will do in office. And if Trump has had a single, consistent message, it is that he’ll use the violent arm of the state to cleanse the nation of “scum” and “vermin,” whether immigrants and refugees or dissenters and political opponents like Reps. Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
There is no reason to act as if the former president is issuing idle threats, especially given his efforts as president to wield violence against protesters, migrants and other perceived enemies of the state. “When he was president,” Asawin Suebsaeng and Tim Dickinson report in Rolling Stone, “several ideas that Trump repeatedly bellowed about in the Oval Office included conducting mass executions, and having U.S. police units kill scores of suspected drug dealers and criminals in urban areas in gunfights, with the cops then piling those corpses up on the street to send a grim message to gangs.”
The only reason these fantasies never became reality is that his aides and top officials either ignored or refused to carry out his orders. Next time, he’ll be surrounded by loyalists and sycophants. Next time, we won’t be so lucky.
What explains those Americans who hear Trump and, counterintuitively, refuse to believe that he says what he means — that he’s just “telling it how it is?”
When exposed to the most intense and acute forms of stress, the brain doesn’t short-circuit as much as it resets to factory settings. You revert to your past experiences and usual patterns of behavior in order to make sense of and respond to the crisis at hand. Your brain takes the extraordinary and — to your detriment — makes it ordinary. This dynamic is the reason soldiers and pilots and first responders and anyone tasked to work in an emergency is trained to act without thinking: reprogrammed so that the mind defaults to a well-defined set of actions when subjected to extreme, mind-altering stress.
You can think of Donald Trump as that extraordinary stress. He is an authoritarian. His running mate, whose intellectual influences include people openly opposed to democracy, is arguably even worse. Trump’s campaign rests on an explicit promise to govern as an autocrat. He has announced, repeatedly, his intent to abuse the authority granted him as president to essentially terrorize millions of Americans, immigrants and native-born citizens alike.
If many Americans, from ordinary voters to political elites and the press, seem paralyzed with inaction, unable to accept what is plainly in front of us, it might just be because the stress of the situation has taken its toll on all of us. Faced with the truly unimaginable, many Americans have defaulted to the notion that this is an ordinary election with ordinary stakes.
If only that were the truth. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
