Analysis: Military leaders who served under Trump are sounding the alarm over a potential second term
Former President Donald Trump’s recent suggestion that the US military should be deployed to address “the enemy from within” on Election Day has raised fresh concerns about what he might ask of US forces if he secures a second term as commander-in-chief.
This alarm has been particularly echoed by senior military leaders who served under him. Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Bob Woodward in his new book, *War*, that Trump is “the most dangerous person to this country” and described him as “a fascist to the core.”
Additionally, during an appearance on *The Bulwark* podcast, Woodward revealed that Gen. Jim Mattis, who served as Trump’s defense secretary, had emailed him to express agreement with Milley’s assessment. Woodward noted that Mattis emphasized the importance of not downplaying the threat posed by Trump, stating, “the threat is high.”
Trump has long exhibited a fascination with the military, idolizing World War II generals like George Patton and Douglas MacArthur. His interest began during his teenage years at a military-style boarding school in New York.
However, despite this fascination, Trump received multiple deferments to avoid service during the Vietnam War. Upon taking office, he surrounded himself with senior military figures, appointing Mattis, a retired four-star general, as Secretary of Defense, and selecting retired four-star general John Kelly as his chief of staff. Additionally, he appointed two three-star generals, Michael Flynn and H. R. McMaster, as national security advisers.
Here’s a look into Trump, Harris and their allies’ ad spending strategies in October
In the first two weeks of October, Donald Trump and his allies allocated approximately one-third of their broadcast TV ad spending to transgender health care, marking a significant shift in strategy compared to previous months.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris and her supporters focused their ad investments on issues such as taxes, character, and health care, while reducing their spending on abortion rights. Democrats have also moved away from earlier strategies that emphasized immigration and crime, which were intended to counter sustained GOP attacks following Harris’s ascension to the ticket.
AdImpact, an ad tracking firm, monitors the issues highlighted in broadcast TV campaign ads and the financial backing behind them. Analyzing changes since August reveals how both campaigns are adjusting their messaging and spending.
Pro-Trump Ads: Since early October, Republican advertisers have inundated battleground states with aggressive attack ads targeting Harris, criticizing her for her past support of taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners—a stance she took during her unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaign.
Pro-Harris Ads: In the same two-week period, tax policy emerged as the leading topic, accounting for nearly half of all broadcast TV ad spending. Taxation has been a focal point in Democratic advertising, forming part of a dual strategy: promoting Harris’s tax policies for working and middle-class families while attacking Trump’s approach and condemning tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
