As he steps into retirement, Gen. Mark Milley says the greatest threat to American democracy will "come from within," an apparent reference to Trump and 2024

Gen. Mark Milley's farewell address.

 

Recent events have taught this lesson: Directing threats and trash talk toward a general in the U.S. military is not a good idea -- especially when your target is THE general, Mark Milley, recently retired chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump might be on the verge of learning that attacking the nation's No. 1 military man -- and being generally disrespectful toward the men and women in uniform -- is a dumb move, one that might have painful repercussions.

In his farewell speech last Friday, Milley strongly hinted that he sees Trump as a threat to national security, to the American democracy. And Milley made it clear that he and other military folks consider such threats to be serious matters. In fact, they take an oath to treat such matters with the utmost seriousness.

Trump spewed his invective as the Operation Saving Democracy political action committee has formed to stop him. What is Operation Saving Democracy? This is from its mission statement:

We have a track record of moving the needle to impact important electoral races around the country using the combined efforts of National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A) and Democratic Majority Action PAC (DMA).

NSL4A evolved from a historic bipartisan effort when more than 1,000 retired admirals, generals, ambassadors, and other national security leaders came together to endorse and support President Joe Biden in 2020 against Donald Trump. Its unique membership encompasses senior leaders from the military and national security-related government agencies, as well as elected officials at the state and local levels. Having dedicated their professional lives to protecting and supporting the “great American experiment” of democracy, almost 600 retired Generals, Admirals, Ambassadors, cabinet and service secretaries, appointed leaders, elected officials, and Senior Executive Service leaders have come together at this time of significant threat to the essential tenets of our Democratic institutions and values. DMA and The American SOS Project PAC are led by Amy McGrath, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who feels a sense of responsibility to fight for our democracy and for the future of our country. 

These partners previously worked together to make critical investments, defeating “election denier” candidates in the 2022 cycle.

Is Mark Milley part of this effort? That is not clear at the moment. But his farewell speech, delivered near Arlington National Cemetery, indicated he and Operation Saving Democracy are on the same page. From a report at CNN under the headline "Milley says the military doesn’t swear oath to a ‘wannabe dictator’ in apparent swipe at Trump":

In an impassioned and at times furious speech, departing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley defiantly proclaimed that the US military does not swear an oath to a “wannabe dictator.”

It was a bitter and pointed swipe that appeared unmistakably targeted at former President Donald Trump, who has in recent days accused Milley of “treason” and suggested that he should be put to death for his conduct surrounding Trump’s bid in 2021 to remain in office despite losing the presidential election.

“We are unique among the world’s militaries,” Milley said. “We don’t take an oath to a country, we don’t take an oath to a tribe, we don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator.”

“And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” he spat. “We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America – and we’re willing to die to protect it.” 

It’s a line Milley has delivered before, including last year at the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps commissioning at Princeton, his alma mater. But he chose to use it Friday, standing alongside President Joe Biden during a national address – his last as the president’s top military adviser and the nation’s top general.

Trump largely has not  been held accountable for most of his life, but the conviction behind Milley's words suggests accountability might be heading in the direction of the Orange Menace -- at long last. From the CNN report:

Although he was appointed by Trump in 2018, Milley has in many ways been shadow-boxing with the former president since the summer of 2020, when Milley appeared briefly alongside Trump as he walked to a church outside of Lafayette Square for a photo op during the George Floyd protests. Milley, who was in uniform, later apologized publicly for “creat[ing] a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.” The apology outraged Trump.

Their relationship became even more contentious in the wake of the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Milley took a number of extraordinary actions to safeguard against what he feared were Trump’s more outlandish instincts, as well as the general chaos of the moment.

Since then, he has become a frequent target for Trump and his allies. And his tenure as chairman has provoked fierce debate among military experts: Was Milley too willing to wade into the realm of domestic politics, or did he stand in the breach to protect a democracy in peril?

On Friday, as he handed over the reins of the chairmanship to Gen. CQ Brown, Milley gave a fierce defense of his view of the military’s defining ethos: to defend, if necessary with the life’s blood of those in uniform, the Constitution of the United States. Throughout, Milley’s suggestion, both implicit and explicit, was that the Constitution’s greatest enemy came from within.

“It is that document that all of us in uniform swear to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Milley said, emphasizing the words “all” in “all enemies” and the “and” between “foreign and domestic."

Milley drew strong parallels between military duty and Constitutional freedoms. One, he said, can be lost without the other:

He appeared to obliquely address criticism that he has drawn the military into domestic politics, expressly linking military service with the protection of bedrock American civil rights.

“The blood we spill pays for our freedom of speech,” Milley thundered. “Our blood pays for the right to assemble, our due process, our freedom of press, our right to vote, and all the other rights and privileges that come with being an American.”

Milley also appeared to take a subtle shot at the US Congress, which is riven by political division and was poised to trigger a government shutdown over the  weekend.

Milley praised “the tremendous service” of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein and then pointedly addressed “all of her colleagues on the Hill.”

“You collectively demonstrate the American will,” Milley said. “We are viewed as either unified or divided, that is your choice. But everybody watches.”

“To our allies and partners, your presence demonstrates our shared interest and common values – and our robust network of allies and partners is a key source of our collective strength,” he said.

Milley has expressed concern about Trump's mental health and fitness for office before, especially in the aftermath of January 6. It does not seem clear to Milley that Trump holds the Constitution and the rule of law in high regard. It is clear that Milley considers Trump and his MAGA followers to be personal threats. From the CNN report:

Milley’s handling of the January 6 crisis continues to be the topic of fierce debate.

Two days after the attack on the Capitol, Milley – concerned that Trump “had gone into a serious mental decline” and might “go rogue” – instructed senior operations officers from the National Military Command Center not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved, according to Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s book, Peril.

He also made a now-controversial phone call in the days following the attack intended to reassure Beijing that the United States was stable and that it was not considering a military strike on China. Trump and his allies have since sought to portray that call, which was made in coordination with Trump administration officials at the Pentagon, as Milley conspiring to aid the Chinese in the event of conflict.

“This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!” Trump wrote on his social media site Truth Social last week. “A war between China and the United States could have been the result of this treasonous act.”

Trump doubled down on his attacks Friday, calling Milley a “moron” and “STUPID & VERY DANGEROUS!” in a Truth Social post after the apparent swipe earlier in the day.

The general has defended his behavior during the last days of the Trump administration, saying his interactions were not only appropriate but that numerous senior Trump officials were aware it occurred. In an appearance on CBS’ 60 Minutes this week, he said he would take additional safety precautions to protect his family in the wake of Trump’s attacks.

“I’ve got adequate safety precautions,” he said. “I wish those comments had not been made, but they were. We will take appropriate measures to ensure my safety and the safety of my family.”

What tools could the military use to hold Trump in line? The answer to that question likely will not be revealed to the public. But our guess is that Milley would not use such powerful language if he did not have the means to back it up  Dealing with Trump, however, poses numerous challenges. From "The Patriot," a profile of Milley in the November 2023 issue of The Atlantic. Writes Jeffrey Goldberg:

In normal times, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the principal military adviser to the president, is supposed to focus his attention on America’s national-security challenges, and on the readiness and lethality of its armed forces. But the first 16 months of Milley’s term, a period that ended when Joe Biden succeeded Donald Trump as president, were not normal, because Trump was exceptionally unfit to serve. “For more than 200 years, the assumption in this country was that we would have a stable person as president,” one of Milley’s mentors, the retired three-star general James Dubik, told me. That this assumption did not hold true during the Trump administration presented a “unique challenge” for Milley, Dubik said.These views of Trump align with those of many officials who served in his administration. Trump’s first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, considered Trump to be a “fucking moron.” John Kelly, the retired Marine general who served as Trump’s chief of staff in 2017 and 2018, has said that Trump is the “most flawed person” he’s ever met. James Mattis, who is also a retired Marine general and served as Trump’s first secretary of defense, has told friends and colleagues that the 45th president was “more dangerous than anyone could ever imagine.” It is widely known that Trump’s second secretary of defense, Mark Esper, believed that the president didn’t understand his own duties, much less the oath that officers swear to the Constitution, or military ethics, or the history of America.

Milley was careful to refrain from commenting publicly on Trump’s cognitive unfitness and moral derangement. In interviews, he would say that it is not the place of the nation’s flag officers to discuss the performance of the nation’s civilian leaders.

But his views emerged in a number of books published after Trump left office, written by authors who had spoken with Milley, and many other civilian and military officials, on background. In The Divider, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser write that Milley believed that Trump was “shameful,” and “complicit” in the January 6 attack. They also reported that Milley feared that Trump’s “ ‘Hitler-like’ embrace of the big lie about the election would prompt the president to seek out a ‘Reichstag moment.’ ”

If Trump accomplishes nothing else, he has at least proven that the assumption our country would always have a stable person as president does not necessarily hold up. Along the same lines, it probably was assumed the country would have stable individuals serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. Given the recent Republican-driven drama over a possible government shutdown, that assumption doesn't appear to hold up either."

A statement on the Operation Saving Democracy website appears to address this issue:

For decades, the Republican Party has been seen as the party of national defense and security. In the age of Trump, extremism within that party has become a huge national security risk.

The Philadelphia Inquirer uses powerful language to endorse Kamala Harris and her progressive agenda over Donald Trump and his stale, refried fascism

Kamala Harris addresses a rally in Philadelphia (NY Times)

The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have been scorched -- by commentators in both the mainstream press and online media -- for preparing endorsements of Kamala Harris for president and then pulling them, apparently under pressure from the Donald Trump campaign and his No. 1 surrogate, Elon Musk. Since then, many papers, large and small, have shown the courage to go through with endorsements of Harris -- clearly the most fit and competent candidate in the 2024 field. Among large papers, that includes the Philadelphia Inquirer and The New York Times. The Philadelphia paper's editorial endorsing Harris is our favorite, and we share their sentiments word for word. Why did the Philadelphia Inquirer endorse Harris? They share their reasoning in clear and concise language, and we encourage our audience to read it. We hope you will follow up on Tuesday with a vote for Kamala Harris, the candidate who will protect our democracy and strengthen our government from a wannabe dictator, Trump, who former associates say is a fascist and admirer of Nazi leader Adolph Hitler and plans to serve only his personal interests. Here is the Philadelphia Inquirer's Harris endorsement, which is one of those pieces that is so good I wish I had written myself: 

Kamala Harris for president | Endorsement; There has never been a more important presidential election in our lifetime. The road to the White House may well run through Pennsylvania and every vote matters.

by The Editorial Board
Published Oct. 25, 2024, 12:41 p.m. ET

Voters face an easy but tectonic choice in the race for the White House.

Will they choose the first woman or the oldest man to be the next president?

Will they choose the prosecutor or the convict?

Will they choose the candidate who supports restoring Roe v. Wade, or the man who bragged about overturning it?

Will they choose the candidate with a tax plan to help the middle class or the one who wants to help the super rich?

Will they choose the candidate who backs a tough bipartisan immigration law or the guy who killed the measure?

Will they choose the candidate who wants to combat climate change or the one who thinks it is a hoax?

Will they choose the candidate who upholds the peaceful transfer of power or the one who summoned a violent mob to attack the U.S. Capitol?

Will they choose the candidate who stands up to Vladimir Putin or the one who said Russia could do “whatever the hell they want”?

Will they choose the candidate who champions education, health care for all, and sensible gun safety laws, or the person who wants to close the U.S. Department of Education, repeal Obamacare, and told supporters after a school shooting to “get over it”?

Will they choose the candidate who supports the working class or the one who is anti-union and opposed raising the minimum wage?

Will they choose a woman of color who wants to unite the country, or a man with a history of misogynistic, racist, and divisive comments and actions?

Will they choose the candidate who supports LGBTQ rights or the one who wants to roll back protections for the gay community?

Will they choose the candidate who will uphold the presidential oath, or the one who was impeached twice for high crimes and misdemeanors, profited from the White House, dangled pardons to cronies, and was indicted four times?

This baker’s dozen list could go on, but the choice is clear and obvious. Vice President Kamala Harris wants to help all Americans.

Donald Trump wants to help himself.

That is why the Inquirer endorses Kamala Devi Harris to be the 47th president of the United States.

If elected, Harris, 60, would be the first Black, South Asian woman to hold the nation’s highest office. She rarely references her historic candidacy, and instead is laser-focused on earning votes through the substance of her vision, ideas, and temperament.

Harris, who grew up in a middle-class family and worked at McDonald’s one summer between college, broke other barriers as the first woman of color elected district attorney in San Francisco in 2004 and attorney general in California in 2010. Her record as a prosecutor doesn’t fit neatly in a box, as she was both tough on crime and progressive.

Harris was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016 and became the first female vice president in 2020. As President Joe Biden’s No. 2, she cast a record number of tie-breaking votes in a polarized Senate, including for the nearly $2 trillion American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act.

The American Rescue Plan contributed to inflation but also enabled the U.S. economy to bounce back faster and stronger from the pandemic than any other industrialized nation, while the Inflation Reduction Act added hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs and spurred infrastructure projects in every state.

By any fair measure, Biden deserves credit for leading the country back to normalcy following the economic collapse caused by the pandemic, Trump’s chaotic mismanagement, and complot to overturn the 2020 election.

Biden has been a calming and consequential president. His policies helped to create millions of jobs, record stock market gains, and higher wages. The Economist recently called the U.S. economy “the envy of the world.”

Yet, Biden, 81, reluctantly stepped aside following his poor debate performance. He deserves credit for putting the country ahead of his ambition — unlike Trump, 78, who has carried on in the face of growing questions about his advanced age and cognitive decline.

Biden’s departure in late July thrust Harris to the top of the ticket. With little notice or time, Harris has met the monumental moment.

She assembled a positive, focused, and forward-looking campaign that has inspired the Democratic Party faithful, and gained support from scores of influential Republicans, including several from Trump’s administration.

Her choice of running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, underscored her focus on building a humble and positive administration focused on helping middle-class and vulnerable Americans. It was yet another contrast to Trump’s selection of J.D. Vance, an unqualified and unpopular fraud who belittles women and once compared Trump to Hitler, but who is now willing to overturn an election for him.

If elected, Harris will likely maintain many of Biden’s positive policies, while charting her own path. In a wide range of interviews and speeches, Harris has demonstrated toughness and empathy — with a dash of cool aunt style.

She eviscerated Trump so thoroughly in their first debate that he backed out of a second meeting. During the debate, Harris did what no man has been able to do to Trump in his nearly 10 years on the political stage: She exposed his lies, frailties, and lack of vision for the country while laughing off his carnival-barking blather.

Harris’ dismantling of Trump served as a real-time reminder that he is unserious and unprepared for the world’s toughest job. Her ability to rattle Trump showed how foreign adversaries can easily steamroll and manipulate him.

Beyond unmasking the raging bully, Harris has substantive plans that will build on the Biden administration’s success. Her tax plan would lower taxes for 95% of Americans while those at the very top would pay more. Hence, the billionaire rebellion led by Elon Musk and others.

She wants to help small-business start-ups by increasing tax deductions from $5,000 to $50,000. She wants to restore the successful pandemic-era child tax credit that reduced childhood poverty by 30%.

Harris has a slew of proposals to make housing more affordable, including tax breaks for builders on homes aimed at first-time buyers, and offering $25,000 in down payment assistance for buyers who paid their rent on time for two years.

She supports U.S. Sen. Bob Casey’s (D., Pa.) bill to crack down on companies for price gouging, and wants to continue Biden’s efforts to lower prescription drug costs.

Harris also backs the bipartisan border deal Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to kill. If Democrats win control of Congress, she supports a federal law to restore the abortion rights that existed under Roe v. Wade.

Harris has many other commonsense proposals for education, gun safety, defense, climate change, and more spelled out on her website.

Meanwhile, Trump is mainly running to escape a mountain of legal troubles, stemming from his coup attempt, stolen classified documents, and conviction for paying off an adult film star to influence the 2016 election.

He is also out for retribution. More than 100 times, he has threatened to jail perceived enemies. He also has targeted media companies and journalists.

Trump has spent the campaign tearing down the country. He rails about the enemy within, but claims his armed mob of supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, took part in a “day of love.” He likens America to a failing, “third-world” nation.

Trump has nothing to offer but fear itself.

His campaign has careened from one reckless lie to another, claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio were eating cats and dogs, and telling hurricane victims that disaster relief funds were spent on migrants.

Campaign stops have turned into Kabuki theater. In Pennsylvania, Trump aimlessly bobbed on stage to music for 39 minutes, served McDonald’s fries at a staged event, and told crude jokes about late golfer Arnold Palmer’s genitalia.

During a campaign rally in Michigan, Trump told women to “get your fat husband off the couch” and “tell him to go and vote for Trump.”

Sadly, many supporters laughed and cheered, though some have left his rallies out of boredom and exhaustion. Like Trump, this act is old.

There is no vision to lift or unite the country. Instead, Trump pits neighbor against neighbor. He has made it safe for white supremacists, antisemites, and neo-Nazis to come out from the shadows and attend his events waving swastikas and shouting, “Make America White again.”

Trump claims immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” echoing the rhetoric used by Adolf Hitler.

John F. Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff and a retired Marine general, said Trump met the definition of a “fascist” and would rule like a dictator.

Retired Gen. Mark Milley, who served as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump, warned that the former president is “the most dangerous person to this country” and a “fascist to the core.”

Those warnings should not be ignored.

Beyond the anger, lies, and hate, Trump’s half-baked policy proposals would spell disaster for the economy, democracy, and his supporters, save a few billionaires.

Trump plans to impose tariffs on imported products from China and other countries. The tariffs amount to a national sales tax that would increase the prices of goods from clothes to computers to cars, and cost the typical family $2,600 a year.

Economists agree the tariffs would reignite inflation, lead to layoffs, reduce stock prices, and trigger a trade war.

Trump’s proposals to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits would drain the Social Security Trust Fund in six years and lead to a 23% reduction in benefits.

Trump also plans to use local police and the National Guard to round up and deport millions of immigrants. Besides the cruelty and legal hurdles, it would take years and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Plus the economic impact. Mass deportations would shock the labor supply, boost the cost of fruits and vegetables, and increase inflation. America’s immigration system has been broken for decades, but this is not how to fix it.

Then there is Project 2025, a detailed plan to install Trump loyalists throughout the federal government and do away with civil liberties, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. The Education Department would be eliminated, and the National Weather Service dismantled. Trump has tried to distance himself from the plan, but his fingerprints are all over it.

Many supporters have learned to tolerate Trump’s crudeness, corruption, and incompetence. Some sadly revel in it. But many fail to understand that he doesn’t care about them. Trump made that clear at a recent rally: “I don’t care about you. I just want your vote.”

Trump will not leave the country better off. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of families who needlessly lost loved ones because he mismanaged, lied, and downplayed the pandemic. His plan to end the war in Ukraine mostly sounds like surrender, which would leave NATO teetering, and American moral authority diminished.

There has never been a more important presidential election in our lifetime. The road to the White House may well run through Pennsylvania. Attention must be paid. Every vote matters.

From targeting President Joe Biden for an unlawful prosecution to loading tariffs on foreign goods, Trump offers one bad idea after another in TIME interview

(Time)

In a cover-story interview for TIME magazine that hit newsstands yesterday, Donald Trump refuses to rule out violence from his supporters if he loses the presidential election in November. In discussing the possibility of political violence from devoted MAGA types, Trump makes several statements that are both deceitful and nonsensical. But that is in keeping with an interview that is filled with alarming comments that should  raise red flags by the dozen regarding Trump's plans for a possible second term. 

Mark Milley, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has called Trump a "wannabe dictator" -- and in the interview, Trump gives the impression he has no clue how to run the American government and has no intention of surrounding himself with people who do know how to run a democracy-based government.  Perhaps that is because, as Trump has publicly stated multiple times, he plans for a potential second term to be about retribution against his perceived political enemies, with democracy barely an afterthought. We will take a look at the "highlights" (or lowlights, depending on how you view Trump's plans to reshape our country, our world.) In my view, Trump comes across as a man who is not serious about governing and is temperamentally and intellectually unfit to handle the job -- even though he's held it for four years already. I see no sign that Trump learned anything during that time. My hope is that Trump supporters will read the Time interview closely and decide if they really want to buy what Trump is selling. A reasonably objective, critical view should yield an answer of "no."

CNN provides four key takeways from the TIME interview, noting that Trump has made the threat of violence part of the "new normal" in American politics. Do even the most devoted  MAGAs want a man like that in the White House? The TIME article should raise doubts in many minds.

This section  stands out in the CNN piece:

Throughout his political career, Trump has regularly refused to accept the results of an election or commit to conceding defeat. After finishing second in the Iowa caucuses in 2016, Trump accused Texas Sen. Ted Cruz of fraud and called for a new contest. Later, while facing Democrat Hillary Clinton, Trump baselessly claimed the election he eventually won was “rigged” and repeatedly refused to say whether he would abide by the outcome. He again avoided a commitment heading into the 2024 election.

“I don’t think we’re going to have [violence],” the presumptive GOP nominee told TIME magazine. “I think we’re going to win. And if we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.”

Trump says the possibility of political violence depends on the "fairness of an election," but does anyone seriously think he will consider an election he loses to be fair? In short, a Trump victory probably means another January 6 -- or something even worse -- will be in our future.

Here is our summary of the tone and issues discussed in the interview, including insights straight from the TIME article:

In discussing the possibility of political violence from devoted MAGA types, Trump makes several statements that are both deceitful and nonsensical. But that is in keeping with an interview that is filled with alarming comments that should  raise red flags by the dozen regarding Trump's plans for a possible second term. 

Trump speaks in his usual off-the cuff, word-salad manner, giving the impression he has big plans for enhancing his own power as chief executive, while offering little or nothing that would improve the lives of everyday Americans. The interview serves as a grim reminder that Trump seems hell-bent on establishing an authoritarian form of government that many observers fear could leave U.S. democracy in tatters and raise the chances of instability on a global scale. In the interview, Trump gives the impression he has no clue how to run the American government and has no intention of surrounding himself with people who do know how to run a democracy-based government. Perhaps that is because, as Trump has publicly stated multiple times, he plans for a potential second term to be about retribution against his perceived political enemies, with democracy barely an afterthought.

The TIME interview probably is the No. 1 topic of conversation in the U.S. today. How did it come to be?  TIME National Politics Reporter Eric Cortellessa.conducted the interview at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. Here is how Cortellessa sets the scene:

Over the course of the interviews, Trump discussed his agenda for a second term, which includes deporting millions of people, cutting the U.S. civil service, and intervening more directly in Justice Department prosecutions than his predecessors. He also discussed his thinking on other issues, including abortion, crime, trade, Ukraine, Israel, and the prospects for political violence in this election cycle.

In the Beginning: Issues and Answers

Donald Trump thinks he’s identified a crucial mistake of his first term: He was too nice.

Q: We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not?

A: As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.”

Q: Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words.

What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.”

Cortellessa points out that steamrolling through America's system of checks and balances might not be so easy:

The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered him in the past remain present. If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he tells TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families. As George Orwell wrote in 1945, the ability of governments to carry out their designs “depends on the general temper in the country.”

Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order.”

In a second term, Trump’s influence on American democracy would extend far beyond pardoning powers. Allies are laying the groundwork to restructure the presidency in line with a doctrine called the unitary executive theory, which holds that many of the constraints imposed on the White House by legislators and the courts should be swept away in favor of a more powerful Commander in Chief.

Justice Matters

Will Trump get his way with the U.S. Department of Justice. Changing American norms in the DOJ could be a major stumbling block for an executive who does not appreciate obstacles, Cortellessa writes

Nowhere would that power be more momentous than at the Department of Justice. Since the nation’s earliest days, Presidents have generally kept a respectful distance from Senate-confirmed law-enforcement officials to avoid exploiting for personal ends their enormous ability to curtail Americans’ freedoms. But Trump, burned in his first term by multiple investigations directed by his own appointees, is ever more vocal about imposing his will directly on the department and its far-flung investigators and prosecutors.

In our Mar-a-Lago interview, Trump says he might fire U.S. Attorneys who refuse his orders to prosecute someone: “It would depend on the situation.” He’s told supporters he would seek retribution against his enemies in a second term. Would that include Fani Willis, the Atlanta-area district attorney who charged him with election interference, or Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA in the Stormy Daniels case, who Trump has previously said should be prosecuted? Trump demurs but offers no promises. “No, I don’t want to do that,” he says, before adding, “We’re gonna look at a lot of things. What they’ve done is a terrible thing.”

Targeting Biden

Trump seems determined to go after Biden, based apparently on Trump's belief that Biden went after him. Is that a good idea? Cortellessa does not seem convinced, especially in a country where the rule of law has constitutional and historic moorings: Has Trump given that any consideration? It does not sound like it, Cortellessa reports:

Trump has vowed to appoint a “real special prosecutor” to go after Biden. “I wouldn’t want to hurt Biden,” he tells me. “I have too much respect for the office.” Seconds later, though, he suggests Biden’s fate may be tied to an upcoming Supreme Court ruling on whether Presidents can face criminal prosecution for acts committed in office. “If they said that a President doesn’t get immunity,” says Trump, “then Biden, I am sure, will be prosecuted for all of his crimes.” (Biden has not been charged with any crimes, and a House Republican effort to impeach him has failed to unearth evidence of any crimes or misdemeanors, high or low.)

Such moves would be potentially catastrophic for the credibility of American law enforcement, scholars and former Justice Department leaders from both parties say. “If he ordered an improper prosecution, I would expect any respectable U.S. Attorney to say no,” says Michael McConnell, a former U.S. appellate judge appointed by President George W. Bush. “If the president fired the U.S. Attorney, it would be an enormous firestorm.” McConnell, now a Stanford law professor, says the dismissal could have a cascading effect similar to the Saturday Night Massacre, when President Richard Nixon ordered top DOJ officials to remove the special counsel investigating Watergate. Presidents have the constitutional right to fire U.S. Attorneys, and typically replace their predecessors’ appointees upon taking office. But discharging one specifically for refusing a President’s order would be all but unprecedented.

Law and the Border

Trump's plans regarding immigration and the Southern border, again, seem oblivious to the law. But our would-be president seems to shrug off any legal concerns. Cortellessa explains the potential legal implications:

Trump’s radical designs for presidential power would be felt throughout the country. A main focus is the southern border. Trump says he plans to sign orders to reinstall many of the same policies from his first term, such as the Remain in Mexico program, which requires that non-Mexican asylum seekers be sent south of the border until their court dates, and Title 42, which allows border officials to expel migrants without letting them apply for asylum. Advisers say he plans to cite record border crossings and fentanyl- and child-trafficking as justification for reimposing the emergency measures. He would direct federal funding to resume construction of the border wall, likely by allocating money from the military budget without congressional approval. The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second. “People need to be deported,” says Tom Homan, a top Trump adviser and former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “No one should be off the table.”

For an operation of that scale, Trump says he would rely mostly on the National Guard to round up and remove undocumented migrants throughout the country. “If they weren’t able to, then I’d use [other parts of] the military,” he says. When I ask if that means he would override the Posse Comitatus Act—an 1878 law that prohibits the use of military force on civilians—Trump seems unmoved by the weight of the statute. “Well, these aren’t civilians,” he says. “These are people that aren’t legally in our country.” He would also seek help from local police and says he would deny funding for jurisdictions that decline to adopt his policies. “There’s a possibility that some won’t want to participate,” Trump says, “and they won’t partake in the riches.”

The "A Word"

Abortion has proven to be a tricky issue for Trump and Republicans, mainly because a poll in summer 2023 shows that 64 percent of U.S. adults believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.That comes after a conservative U.S. Supreme Court, with three Trump appointees, struck down Roe vs. Wade. In a show of profound political courage, Trump  seems to be distancing himself from an issue he now sees as a loser. Cortellessa writes:

As President, Trump nominated three Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he claims credit for his role in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, he has sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says. When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation.

Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80 percent of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to “the moment of fertilization.” I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. “I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,” Trump says, “because we now have it back in the states.”

It's the Economy, Stupid 

Experts say Trump's economic plans could have dire consequences for the United States. Is Trump aware of that? No. Does he seem to care? No:

Presidents typically have a narrow window to pass major legislation. Trump’s team is eyeing two bills to kick off a second term: a border-security and immigration package, and an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. Many of the latter’s provisions expire early in 2025: the tax cuts on individual income brackets, 100% percent business expensing, the doubling of the estate-tax deduction. Trump is planning to intensify his protectionist agenda, telling me he’s considering a tariff of more than 10% on all imports, and perhaps even a 100% tariff on some Chinese goods. Trump says the tariffs will liberate the U.S. economy from being at the mercy of foreign manufacturing and spur an industrial renaissance in the U.S. When I point out that independent analysts estimate Trump’s first-term tariffs on thousands of products, including steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines, may have cost the U.S. $316 billion and more than 300,000 jobs, by one account, he dismisses these experts out of hand. His advisers argue that the average yearly inflation rate in his first term—under 2%—is evidence that his tariffs won’t raise prices.

Since leaving office, Trump has tried to engineer a caucus of the compliant, clearing primary fields in Senate and House races. His hope is that GOP majorities replete with MAGA diehards could rubber-stamp his legislative agenda and nominees. Representative Jim Banks of Indiana, a former RSC chairman and the GOP nominee for the state’s open Senate seat, recalls an August 2022 RSC planning meeting with Trump at his residence in Bedminster, N.J. As the group arrived, Banks recalls, news broke that Mar-a-Lago had been raided by the FBI. Banks was sure the meeting would be canceled. Moments later, Trump walked through the doors, defiant and pledging to run again. “I need allies there when I’m elected,” Banks recalls Trump saying. The difference in a second Trump term, Banks says now, “is he’s going to have the backup in Congress that he didn’t have before.”

What about our takeaways from the TIME interview? We have several:

(1) Trump is woefully unprepared to be president. His answers would have to improve to be vapid. They reveal that he has no idea how government works, and he probably cares even less;

(2) History tells us that it is important for a president to know a little bit about the law. Time and again, Trump's answers show that he knows zero about the law. Worse yet, he seems to have given no thought to the legal implications of what he wants to do;

(3) My favorite takeaway is this: TIME has provided a public service by showing that Eric Cortellessa knows way more about politics, government, law, history, you name it -- and would make a far better president than Donald Trump.

(4) This realization made me wish the two men could switch positions, with Cortellessa as the presidential candidate, and Trump as . . . well, an interviewer, I guess. Here's the problem with that: (a) I can't think of anything Trump would be good at; and (b) Having been a professional journalist for more than 40 years, I know interviewing is a challenging task -- and Trump would be terrible at it. First of all, you have to listen to your subject, and I'm not aware that Trump listens to anybody.

(5) For this year, my hope is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris pound Trump into the dustbin of history and get MAGA off the public stage forever. I do think Cortellessa has the goods to be an excellent public servant. We all would be better off with Cortellessa running for office, and Trump "working" as a gofer for Golf Digest -- after serving 20 years or so in a prison on a remote island, perhaps in the area where his buddy, Jeffrey Epstein, used to do the "mess around." It needs to be remote, with no communications system to the outside world, because (like a lot of people) I'm tired of hearing Trump's voice, seeing his face,  reading his mindless rants, and listening to all the ignorant things he says. (Don't forget to inject bleach into your veins this flu season!) It's as if Trump has been holding the American people hostage, and we need him out of our lives permanently.