Threatening ‘The Enemy Within’ With Force: Military Ethicists Explain The Danger To American Tradition

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.

On the campaign trail, former President Donald Trump has declared there are serious threats to the United States. First, he said, there is “the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous,” as he told Fox News in an Oct. 13, 2024, interview.

He went on to say that “the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think. And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military.”

When asked on CNN about Trump’s remarks about using the military on U.S. soil, Mark Esper, one of five people who led the Defense Department during Trump’s presidency, said Americans “should take those words seriously,” most especially because Trump had already tried to do so when he was president.

As professors of military ethics, we worry that Trump’s actions while president, and his comments about his plans for a potential second term, may put the military in a tough position. The July 1, 2024, Supreme Court ruling giving the president immunity for official acts – potentially including as commander in chief of the military – would make that tough position even more difficult.

Response to demonstrations

In the summer of 2020, protests, including some violent ones, arose in cities around the U.S. in the wake of the May 25 murder of George Floyd. Then-President Trump announced he was considering sending the U.S. military into the streets of several American cities. He had already deployed some National Guard members in Washington in an effort to control the demonstrations there.

At the time, the two of us considered the possibility of dissent within the military hierarchy, saying that resistance would be most effective “if it were to come from those at the top.”

Indeed, many of the highest-ranking generals, admirals and Cabinet-level advisers resisted Trump’s requests to send the military to “beat the f— out” of protesters and “crack their skulls” – or even “just shoot them.”

Though Trump reportedly wanted to bring as many as 10,000 soldiers to Washington, fewer troops were deployed in the nation’s capital. No federal military personnel were used against public demonstrations in the U.S. that summer. Some National Guard troops were called up by state governors, not federal orders.

The reasons for civilian control

For his potential second term, Trump says he wants to hire Cabinet and other government officials who will follow his orders without question, rather than people who might try to prevent his worst inclinations from being enacted.

Questions about dissent and disobedience will therefore likely fall on those at more junior levels of military service in a second Trump administration than they did in the first.

The U.S. military has long been dedicated to the principle of civilian control. To minimize the chance of the kind of military occupation they suffered during the Revolutionary War, the country’s founders wrote the Constitution requiring that the president, an elected civilian, would be the commander in chief of the military. In the wake of World War II, Congress went even further, restructuring the military and requiring that the secretary of defense be a civilian as well.

For that reason, in a time of increasing political polarization, military educational institutions are focusing even more explicitly on the oath military members take to the Constitution, rather than to a person or an office.

As the Joint Chiefs of Staff reminded the military after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, and just before the inauguration of Joe Biden as president, military personnel serve the nation’s interests, not those of a politician or a political party.

Nonpartisanship could become partisan

When faced with a potential order to deploy the U.S. military within the nation’s borders, however, service members may find themselves in a situation where upholding the military’s tradition of staying out of politics could itself appear partisan.

Military members have a duty to obey orders from superior officers. But as military ethicists, we recognize that the content of an order is not the only factor that determines whether it is a moral one.

The political motivation for an order may be equally important. That’s because the military’s obligation to stay out of politics is deeply intertwined with the mutual obligation of civilian officials not to use the military for partisan reasons.

If an elected official were to attempt to use the military for obviously partisan ends, the decisions of military personnel to either follow the order or resist it would open them up to accusations of partisanship – even if their actions were attempts to protect the military’s strict partisan neutrality.

At the nation’s founding, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson worried about a military that would be loyal to a particular leader rather than to a form of government. James Madison was concerned that soldiers might be used by those in power as instruments of oppression against the citizenry.

Trump has said the National Guard or the military could “easily handle” political protesters. He has recommended one “really rough, nasty” hour of police violence to curb criminal activity. He has expressed a desire for military officers to be obedient to him and not the Constitution.

It’s not clear that military members could follow those kinds of orders and remain nonpartisan. By refusing to follow orders about military deployment to U.S. cities for political ends, members of the armed forces could actually be respecting, rather than undermining, the principle of civilian control. After all, the framers always intended it to be the people’s military – not the president’s.

People in military uniforms walk into an open paved area.
In 2020, military personnel clear protesters from a park in Washington. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Risks for military members

There is a long line of military heroes who had the moral courage not to follow immoral orders. In fact, it was a junior officer who first exposed the widespread use of torture in the global war on terror.

That particular example may be useful to consider in the weeks and months ahead, given the significant effort at the time to argue that some of those immoral orders could nonetheless be legal.

Recently, some of Trump’s former military advisers have raised concerns about the the potential use of U.S. troops in American cities. But several of his civilian advisers have already recommended being less reticent about finding legal means to deploy the military within the country. And a July 1, 2024, Supreme Court ruling gave the president criminal immunity for official acts – which almost certainly include giving orders to the military.

Regardless of who wins the 2024 presidential election, there will likely be significant protests over policy – perhaps even over the results themselves. If the military is ever called in because of those actions, military members would have to consider whether they could ethically follow the orders to do so. To be ready to answer these important questions, they have to consider them now.

We often ask our students to imagine themselves in numerous different ethical situations, both real and hypothetical. In the present circumstance, we believe one set of ethical questions could quickly become very concrete for those serving:

“Would you obey an order from a president – a particular president giving an order for a particular reason – to deploy to a U.S. city? What might it mean for the nation if you did? And what might it mean for American democracy if, in some circumstances, you were brave enough not to?”

Many Americans claim to venerate military men and women, thanking them for their service and standing to celebrate them at sporting events. They may need much more support than that from the American people, and soon.

The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The academic views expressed in this article are the views of the authors alone and should not be read as endorsing any candidate for office. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Naval Academy, the Naval Postgraduate School, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense or any other entity within the U.S. government; the authors are not authorized to provide any official position of these entities. This article contains some material previously published on June 11, 2020.

The Complex Election Threat Matrix Runs Through One Man

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

Donald Trump Is To Blame

As we careen toward Election Day in a week, the day’s news is replete with reminders that Donald Trump continues to be a singular threat to free and fair elections. The complexity of the threat matrix – political violence, foreign interference, conspiracy theories, the Big Lie – can obscure that Trump plays a critical role in all of them as instigator, inciter, conspiracist, accelerant, and useful idiot.

For nearly a decade now, Trump has radicalized American politics and personally served as a catalyst for the worst impulses, extremism, and violence that have afflicted the public square. He has created, sustained, and nourished a crazed political atmosphere which pushes lone wolf actors over the edge. He has summoned and rallied a crowd of insurrectionists and turned them loose against the legislative branch in order to remain in power. He has dipped into Nazi rhetoric, dehumanized entire peoples and nationalities, trafficked in the most racist tropes, and treated women like trash. He has taken a sledgehammer to democratic institutions and the principles upon which they are based.

You know this already. None of this is new.

But as you survey today’s news, don’t forget that Trump plays a role in every single item, usually a major, active role. There is nothing subtle about him or the threat he poses, but the sheer volume of threats and the different flavors they come in make it hard to keep a clear and steady focus on how they all emanate from one man.

Trump’s Big Lie Redux Already Well Underway

  • NBC News: “As Election Day approaches, former President Donald Trump has increasingly been warning that if he loses, it will be because of cheating. … [B]y pre-emptively raising doubts about the results, Trump is setting the stage to possibly challenge the outcome and throw the electoral system into chaos again.”
  • NYT: How Trump Is Using Truth Social to Concoct and Spread Conspiracy Theories

Ballot Box Fires In PDX Metro Area

A fire in a ballot box in Portland, Oregon, caused minor damage, but a similar fire across the Columbia River in Vancouver, Washington, that police believe is related damaged or destroyed hundreds of ballots. A suspect vehicle has been identified by law enforcement.

Election Threats Watch

  • NBC News: “U.S. intelligence agencies have identified domestic extremists with grievances rooted in election-related conspiracy theories, including beliefs in widespread voter fraud and animosity toward perceived political opponents, as the most likely threat of violence in the coming election.”
  • TPM’s Hunter Walker: Intelligence expert who aired early intel about Jan. 6 warns of “lone wolf” attacks targeting lower-level candidates and election infrastructure.
  • NYT: How Russia, China and Iran Are Interfering in the Presidential Election

Sign Of The Times

Donald Trump, last night in Atlanta: “I’m not a Nazi. I’m the opposite of a Nazi.”

Quote Of The Day

Doug Emhoff, on Donald Trump:

He demeans immigrants with the same hateful slurs hurled at our ancestors: vermin, animals who poison the blood of our country. He scapegoats Jewish voters right to our faces, saying that if he loses, it will be the fault of Jews. He looks at Adolf Hitler’s generals and sees something to admire. Just let that sink in. You do not reward someone like that with a platform or with power, and never again with the presidency.

Steve Bannon Released From Prison

The former Trump adviser and right-wing provocateur was released from federal prison Tuesday after serving a four-month sentence for contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena from the House Jan. 6 committee.

A Notable Jan. 6 Sentence

Ryan Reilly: “A Hollywood actor who had supporting roles in ‘Anchorman,’ ‘Mr. Show,’ ‘Arrested Development’ and ‘Bob’s Burgers’ was sentenced to 12 months and a day in federal prison on Monday for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.”

Court Docs Unsealed In Jan. 6 Grand Jury Probe

  • Politico: Unsealed court documents show judges have long worried about Trump ‘delay tactics’
  • NYT: Secret Files in Election Case Show How Judges Limited Trump’s Privilege

Bezos Backlash Continues

  • NPR: More than 200,000 people had cancelled their WaPo digital subscriptions by midday Monday over Jeff Bezos’ decision to block the newspaper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris for president.
  • After the media company initially sought to make it seem like the decision wasn’t Bezos’, Bezos himself penned an op-ed in which he took ownership of the decision and conceded that the timing was bad: “I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.” Who could have anticipated a presidential election in November 2024?
  • Two more opinion writers resigned Monday from the WaPo editorial board.

Oligarchs On The Loose

  • With his various business interests and foreign entanglements, Trump II would break Trump I’s record for the most conflicted presidency in U.S. history, the NYT reports.
  • Elon Musk’s America PAC is running an ad that slyly calls Kamala Harris a “cunt.”
  • Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner sued to block Elon Musk’s $1 million cash giveaways to voters.
  • Fiona Hill on oligarchy:

Musk is something that we’ve never really seen before. People refer back to the Rockefellers and Andrew Carnegie and the robber barons of the Gilded Age, or the billionaires that emerged in Russia in the 1990s and 2000s. Musk is beyond that in his wealth and influence. He’s on track to become the world’s first trillionaire. His personal wealth is about the same as a medium-sized country. His bonuses are on the scale of the defense budgets of a whole host of countries.

So not only is Musk trying to bankroll Trump’s reelection, but he’s talking to Putin. He’s talking to people in China and elsewhere. Musk has global business interests. He’s part of a rich and powerful class of people who see themselves as global peers.

‘Put Them In Trauma’

ProPublica and Documented have obtained videos of two private speeches by former Trump OMB Director Russ Vought at events for his pro-Trump think tank Center for Renewing America that build on work TPM has done to reveal the ambitions for a Trump II presidency.

Among the most alarming of Vought’s comments was the threat to federal government workers:

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so.

“We want to put them in trauma.”

2024 Ephemera

  • Kamala Harris is scheduled to give her closing national address from The Ellipse tonight, a powerful callback to Trump’s “Stop The Steal” rally on Jan. 6.
  • Harris launched a new ad seizing on Tony Hinchcliffe’s racist joke about Puerto Ricans at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally. In related news: Hinchcliffe was originally planning to call Harris a “cunt” during his bit but the Trump campaign nixed that line.
  • Brian Stelter: How social media video clippers have become some of the most powerful outlets of the 2024 campaign

CNN Blowup

CNN banned conservative panelist Ryan Girdusky from the network after he implied that former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan was a terrorist. In a live panel, Girdusky told Hasan he hoped his beeper did not explode, prompting CNN host Abby Phillip to scold, “Ryan, that is completely out of pocket.”

‘Holy Shit, I Just Remembered The Coup!’

On the 40th anniversary of Lee Greenwood’s paean to American exceptionalism, finally the alternative we’ve always needed:

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

Inside TPM: David Kurtz

Here it is, due to popular demand, the latest episode of Inside TPM with executive editor David Kurtz. How did he come to join TPM? How does he approach the Morning Memo? What does an executive editor do? How does this election differ from others? Who will win the World Series? We go through it all, and more — hope you enjoy.

Latest Person To Give Alito A Gift: German Princess And ’80s Party Scenester-Turned-Catholic Reactionary

In 1985, Vanity Fair described Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, a member of the German aristocracy, as “a wild version of her friend,” Princess Diana. Known in the tabloids as “Princess TNT,” she hosted royalty and celebrities such as Andy Warhol and Mick Jagger and was photographed endlessly sporting towering, technicolored hair and dresses reminiscent of disco balls.

Now, she hangs out with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito.

Continue reading “Latest Person To Give Alito A Gift: German Princess And ’80s Party Scenester-Turned-Catholic Reactionary”

Philadelphia DA Steps In To Fight Musk’s Million-Dollar MAGA Lottery Scheme

As the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, actively campaigns for Donald Trump and pushes a daily, million-dollar giveaway stunt to influence voters in the upcoming presidential election, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office stepped in on Monday to attempt to shut down Musk’s endeavor.

Continue reading “Philadelphia DA Steps In To Fight Musk’s Million-Dollar MAGA Lottery Scheme”

What To Know About The Ballot Drop Box Incidents In Oregon And Washington

The FBI, alongside local and state law enforcement, is investigating two incidents of ballot drop boxes catching fire on Monday in Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.

Continue reading “What To Know About The Ballot Drop Box Incidents In Oregon And Washington”

Election Miscellany #1

I’m seeing more and more data points and testimonials – from both sides of the aisle – that the Democratic ground game in multiple states is superior to the Republican one, in many cases by a substantial degree. Now it’s Republicans who are starting to say it. For Republicans saying this is itself a get out the vote effort, warning of the danger to shake more Republican voters loose and get them to the polls. But looking at it in toto I think they’re saying it because they mean it.

Intelligence Expert Who Aired Early Warnings About Jan 6 Discusses Risks Ahead Of Election

January 6, 2021 is a day that will live in infamy. And nearly four years after the smoke cleared from the attack on the Capitol building, our election system remains under assault with former President Trump’s continuing, false insistence that he won the presidential race in 2020 becoming a core campaign issue for the Republican Party and a sprawling grassroots movement. 

Now, Election Day — and, with it, another electoral certification on Jan. 6, 2025 — is approaching alongside the specter of violence.

To understand what to expect, TPM spoke with an intelligence expert who was on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 and has continued to monitor the far-right. 

Continue reading “Intelligence Expert Who Aired Early Warnings About Jan 6 Discusses Risks Ahead Of Election”

A Good Piece on Polling

We’ve discussed repeatedly in recent months how poll results aren’t just “the numbers” in some hard, incontestable sense. They include a set of assumptions about the nature of the electorate. For most TPM readers, this is a fairly straightforward point that doesn’t require much convincing or explanation. But this post by a professor at Vanderbilt provides a really helpful real-world illustration. Josh Clinton takes sample data and shows that by using different reasonable and good faith assumptions about the electorate he can get results ranging from Harris +.9 to Harris +8. Don’t pay attention to the fact that these results are all still in her favor. The point is that the assumptions baked into the poll can yield results 7 points apart. It could as easily be Trump +3 to Harris +4. Again, it’s one thing to understand this in the abstract. But the specific explanation and the concrete outputs tell the story in a different way.

If nothing else, this is why that 7 point spread is just a bright flashing neon light that many of us are disregarding or not even seeing while we’re obsessing about win or loss margins of like half a percentage point.

‘Put Them in Trauma’: Inside a Key MAGA Leader’s Plans for a New Trump Agenda

This article was first published by ProPublica and Documented. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

A key ally to former President Donald Trump detailed plans to deploy the military in response to domestic unrest, defund the Environmental Protection Agency and put career civil servants “in trauma” in a series of previously unreported speeches that provide a sweeping vision for a second Trump term.

In private speeches delivered in 2023 and 2024, Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, described his work crafting legal justifications so that military leaders or government lawyers would not stop Trump’s executive actions.

He said the plans are a response to a “Marxist takeover” of the country; likened the moment to 1776 and 1860, when the country was at war or on the brink of it; and said the timing of Trump’s candidacy was a “gift of God.”

ProPublica and Documented obtained videos of the two speeches Vought delivered during events for the Center for Renewing America, a pro-Trump think tank led by Vought. The think tank’s employees or fellows include Jeffrey Clark, the former senior Justice Department lawyer who aided Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election result; Ken Cuccinelli, a former acting deputy secretary in the Department of Homeland Security under Trump; and Mark Paoletta, a former senior budget official in the Trump administration. Other Trump allies such as former White House adviser Steve Bannon and U.S. Reps. Chip Roy and Scott Perry either spoke at the conferences or appeared on promotional materials for the events.

Vought does not hide his agenda or shy away from using extreme rhetoric in public. But the apocalyptic tone and hard-line policy prescriptions in the two private speeches go further than his earlier pronouncements. As OMB director, Vought sought to use Trump’s 2020 “Schedule F” executive order to strip away job protections for nonpartisan government workers. But he has never spoken in such pointed terms about demoralizing federal workers to the point that they don’t want to do their jobs. He has spoken in broad terms about undercutting independent agencies but never spelled out sweeping plans to defund the EPA and other federal agencies.

Vought’s plans track closely with Trump’s campaign rhetoric about using the military against domestic protesters or what Trump has called the “enemy within.” Trump’s desire to use the military on U.S. soil recently prompted his longest-serving chief of staff, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, to speak out, saying Trump “certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.”

Other policies mentioned by Vought dovetail with Trump’s plans, such as embracing a wartime footing on the southern border and rolling back transgender rights. Agenda 47, the campaign’s policy blueprint, calls for revoking President Joe Biden’s order expanding gender-affirming care for transgender people; Vought uses even more extreme language, decrying the “transgender sewage that’s being pumped into our schools and institutions” and referring to gender-affirming care as “chemical castration.”

Since leaving government, Vought has reportedly remained a close ally of the former president. Speaking in July to undercover journalists posing as relatives of a potential donor, Vought said Trump had “blessed” the Center for Renewing America and was “very supportive of what we do,” CNN reported.

Vought did not respond to requests for comment.

“Since the Fall of 2023, President Trump’s campaign made it clear that only President Trump and the campaign, and NOT any other organization or former staff, represent policies for the second term,” Danielle Alvarez, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, said in a statement. She did not directly address Vought’s statements.

Karoline Leavitt, his campaign’s national press secretary, added there have been no discussions on who would serve in a second Trump administration.

In addition to running his think tank, Vought was the policy director of the Republican National Committee’s official platform committee ahead of the nominating convention. He’s also an architect of Project 2025, the controversial coalition effort mapping out how a second Trump administration can quickly eliminate obstacles to rolling out a hard-right policy agenda.

As ProPublica and Documented reported, Project 2025 has launched a massive program to recruit, vet and train thousands of people to “be ready on day one” to serve in a future conservative administration. (Trump has repeatedly criticized Project 2025, and his top aides have said the effort has no connection to the official campaign despite the dozens of former Trump aides and advisers who contributed to Project 2025.)

Vought is widely expected to take a high-level government role if Trump wins a second term. His name has even been mentioned as a potential White House chief of staff. The videos obtained by ProPublica and Documented offer an unfiltered look at Vought’s worldview, his plans for a Trump administration and his fusing of MAGA ideology and Christian nationalism.

A Shadow Government in Waiting

In his 2024 speech, Vought said he was spending the majority of his time helping lead Project 2025 and drafting an agenda for a future Trump presidency. “We have detailed agency plans,” he said. “We are writing the actual executive orders. We are writing the actual regulations now, and we are sorting out the legal authorities for all of what President Trump is running on.”

Vought laid out how his think tank is crafting the legal rationale for invoking the Insurrection Act, a law that gives the president broad power to use the military for domestic law enforcement. The Washington Post previously reported the issue was at the top of the Center for Renewing America’s priorities.

“We want to be able to shut down the riots and not have the legal community or the defense community come in and say, ‘That’s an inappropriate use of what you’re trying to do,’” he said. Vought held up the summer 2020 unrest following George Floyd’s murder as an example of when Trump ought to have had the ability to deploy the armed forces but was stymied.

Vought’s preparations for a future Trump administration involve building a “shadow” Office of Legal Counsel, he told the gathered supporters in May 2023. That office, part of the Justice Department, advises the president on the scope of their powers. Vought made clear he wants the office to help Trump steamroll the kind of internal opposition he faced in his first term.

Historically, the OLC has operated with a degree of independence. “If, all of a sudden, the office is full of a bunch of loyalists whose only job is to rubber-stamp the White House’s latest policy directive, whose only goal is to justify the ends by whatever means, that would be quite dangerous,” said an attorney who worked in the office under a previous Republican administration and requested anonymity to speak freely.

Another priority, according to Vought, was to “defund” certain independent federal agencies and demonize career civil servants, which include scientists and subject matter experts. Project 2025’s plan to revive Schedule F, an attempt to make it easier to fire a large swath of government workers who currently have civil service protections, aligns with Vought’s vision.

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so.

“We want to put them in trauma.”

Vought also revealed the extent of the Center for Renewing America’s role in whipping up right-wing panic ahead of the 2022 midterms over an increase in asylum-seekers crossing at the U.S.-Mexico border.

In February 2022, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich released a legal opinion claiming the state was under “invasion” by violent cartels and could invoke war powers to deploy National Guard troops to its southern border. The legally dubious “invasion” theory became a potent Republican talking point.

Vought said in the 2023 speech that he and Cuccinelli, the former top Homeland Security official for Trump, personally lobbied Brnovich on the effort. “We said, ‘Look, you can write your own opinion, but here’s a draft opinion of what this should look like,’” Vought said.

The nonpartisan watchdog group American Oversight later obtained an email in which Vought pitched the “invasion” framework to Brnovich.

Brnovich wrote in an email to ProPublica that he recalled multiple discussions with Cuccinelli about border security. But he added that “the invasion opinion was the result of a formal request from a member of the Arizona legislature. And I can assure you it was drafted and written by hard working attorneys (including myself) in our office.”

In the event Trump loses, Vought called for Republican leaders of states such as Florida and Texas to “create red-state sanctuaries” by “kicking out all the feds as much as they possibly can.”

“Nothing Short of a Quiet Revolution”

The two speeches delivered by Vought, taken together, offer an unvarnished look at the animating ideology and political worldview of a key figure in the MAGA movement.

Over the last century, Vought said, the U.S. has “experienced nothing short of a quiet revolution” and abandoned what he saw as the true meaning and force of the Constitution. The country today, he argued, was a “post-constitutional regime,” one that no longer adhered to the separation of powers among the three branches of government as laid out by the framers.

He lamented that the conservative right and the nation writ large had become “too secular” and “too globalist.” He urged his allies to join his mission to “renew a consensus of America as a nation under God.”

And in one of his most dramatic flourishes, he likened the 2024 election to moments in America’s history when the country was facing all-out war.

“We are here in the year of 2024, a year that very well [could] — and I believe it will — rival 1776 and 1860 for the complexity and the uncertainty of the forces arrayed against us,” Vought told his audience, referring to years when the colonies declared independence from Britain and the first state seceded over President Abraham Lincoln’s election. “God put us here for such a time as this.”

Vought said that independent agencies and unelected bureaucrats and experts wield far too much power while the traditional legislative process is a sham. He extended that critique to agencies like the Department of Justice and the Federal Reserve, whose independence from the White House had long been protected by both political parties.

“The left in the U.S. doesn’t want an energetic president with the power to motivate the executive branch to the will of the American people consistent with the laws of the country,” he said in the 2024 speech. “They don’t want a vibrant Congress where great questions are debated and decided in front of the American people. They don’t want empowered members. They want discouraged and bored backbenchers.”

He added, “The all-empowered career expert like Tony Fauci is their model, wielding power behind the curtains.” Fauci was one of the top public health experts under Trump at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and a key figure in coordinating the national response.

What sets Vought apart from most of his fellow conservative activists is that he accuses powerful organizations on the right of being complicit in the current system of government, singling out the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, the conservative and libertarian legal network co-chaired by activist Leonard Leo. The society is widely seen as an instrumental force in cultivating young conservative lawyers and building a bench of future judges whose embrace of legal theories like originalism and textualism have led to decisions overturning abortion rights, environmental protections and social welfare policies.

Yet in his 2024 speech, Vought accused the Federalist Society and “originalist judges” of being a part of the problem, perpetuating the “post-constitutional structure” that Vought lamented by not ruling more aggressively to weaken or dismantle independent regulatory agencies that Vought and his allies view as illegitimate or unconstitutional.

It was “like being in a contract quietly revoked two decades ago, in which one party didn’t tell the other,” he said. “At some point, reality needs to set in. Instead, we have the vaunted so-called Federalist Society and originalist judges acting as a Praetorian Guard for this post-constitutional structure.”

Echoing Trump’s rhetoric, Vought implicitly endorsed the false claim of a stolen 2020 election and likened the media’s debunkings of that claim to Chinese Communist propaganda.

“In the aftermath of the election, we had all these people going around saying, ‘Well, I don’t see any evidence of voter fraud. The media’s not giving enough [of] a compelling case,’” he said. “Well, that compelling case has emerged. But does a Christian in China ask and come away saying, ‘You know, there’s no persecution, because I haven’t read about it in the state regime press?’ No, they don’t.”

Vought referred to the people detained for alleged crimes committed on Jan. 6, 2021, as “political prisoners” and defended the lawyers Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman, who have both faced criminal charges for their role in Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Federal law enforcement agencies, he added, “are keeping political opponents in jail, and I think we need to be honest about that.”

The left, Vought continued, has the ultimate goal of ending representative democracy altogether. “The stark reality in America is that we are in the late stages of a complete Marxist takeover of the country,” he said, “in which our adversaries already hold the weapons of the government apparatus, and they have aimed it at us. And they are going to continue to aim it until they no longer have to win elections.”

When Democrats called Trump an “existential threat to democracy,” they were not merely calling for his defeat at the ballot box, he said, but were using “coded language the national security state uses overseas when they are overthrowing other governments” to discourage the military from putting down anti-Trump protests should he win.

“They’re making Trump out to be a would-be dictator or an authoritarian,” he said. “So they’re actively working now to ensure, on a number of levels, that the military will perceive this as dictatorial and therefore not respond to any orders to quell any violence.”

Trump, Vought insisted, has the credibility and the track record to defeat the “Marxist” left and bring about the changes that Vought and his MAGA allies seek. In his view, the Democratic Party’s agenda and its “quiet revolution” could be stopped only by a “radical constitutionalist,” someone in the mold of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. For Vought, no one was in a better position to fill that role than Trump.

“We have in Donald Trump a man who is so uniquely positioned to serve this role, a man whose own interests perfectly align with the interests of the country,” Vought said. “He has seen what it has done to him, and he has seen what they are trying to do to the country.

“That,” he added, “is nothing more than a gift of God.”