Connect with us

Politics

Column: Listen to Trump's former aides: He'd be far more dangerous in a second term

Published

on

Column: Listen to Trump's former aides: He'd be far more dangerous in a second term

Donald Trump’s former White House chief of staff, retired Marine Gen. John F. Kelly, broke a long silence and denounced his former boss as a man who fits “the general definition of fascist.”

The conservative, normally taciturn Kelly was moved to speak out after Trump condemned former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Adam B. Schiff and other Democrats as “the enemy from within” and said he would deploy troops onto the nation’s streets to suppress opposition.

“Using the military on, to go after, American citizens is … a very, very bad thing,” Kelly told the New York Times. “Even to say it for political purposes to get elected, I think it’s a very, very bad thing.”

Kelly wasn’t the only former Trump aide to warn that the GOP candidate shouldn’t be trusted with the nuclear codes. Dozens of people who worked in senior positions in the Trump administration have chimed in. Gen. Mark A. Milley, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called him “fascist to the core … the most dangerous person to the country.” Former national security advisor John Bolton said he was “unfit to be president.”

Advertisement

Trump “never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, any time he wanted,” Kelly said.

Did those warnings from authoritative sources — eminent figures Trump once appointed to high-ranking jobs — have any effect on his voters as election day approaches?

Not as far as anyone can tell.

Readers of this column won’t be surprised to learn that I agree wholeheartedly with Kelly, Milley, Bolton and their colleagues: Trump is a danger to our democracy.

He neither understands nor respects the Constitution. He yearns openly to rule the way China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin do, as an autocrat answerable to no one. “He controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist,” he said admiringly of Xi.

Advertisement

Trump revels in divisiveness and cruelty. And his economic “program,” which boils down to massive tariffs on imports plus unlimited drilling for oil and gas, would be disastrous.

Why do millions of voters — many of them, as Trump might put it, very fine people — blow past the warnings of figures like Kelly, Milley and Bolton?

Over the last year, I’ve listened to dozens of Trump voters describe their reasons for sticking with him.

Some, his hardcore base, agree with everything the former president says right down to the coarsest insults.

Others admit to qualms about Trump’s style but say they support him because they hope he can bring back the low-inflation prosperity of his first two years in office.

Advertisement

But a third group, which includes many independents as well as moderate Republicans, is the most perplexing. Not only do they dislike Trump’s style, they worry about some of his positions: his desire to unravel Obamacare, his threats to deploy the military against domestic opponents, his indiscriminate tariffs, his plan to fire thousands of civil servants and replace them with MAGA loyalists.

But many say they don’t think Trump would — or could — actually make those things happen.

In a focus group last week organized for NBC News by the public opinion consulting firm Engagious, for example, an Atlanta home inspector named Kevin said he worried that Trump’s tariffs would make consumer prices go up.

“It’s a bad idea,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s going to really go anywhere. I think it’ll cost too much money. It’ll be too difficult politically.” He’ll probably vote for Trump anyway, he said.

Pollsters have called this Trump’s “believability gap.” Voters hear what he says, but they discount it — they think that “he’s just talking” or that surely somebody will stop his more outlandish ideas.

Advertisement

But there are two problems with those Trump voters’ self-comforting rationalizations.

The first is that Trump already has a track record of trying to do most of those things. He tried to repeal Obamacare, but a handful of moderate Republican senators got in his way. He issued an executive order that would have enabled him to replace civil servants with political appointees, but time ran out on his term before he could use it.

And when demonstrators assembled across the street from the White House, he urged military officials to deploy troops and shoot protesters in the legs — but Gen. Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper stopped him.

“When he starts talking about using the military against people … I think we should take that very seriously,” Olivia Troye, who served as an aide to Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, told my colleague Noah Bierman recently. “He actually talked about shooting Americans. I was there … I witnessed that.”

The second problem with the “believability gap” is that if Trump gets back to the White House, he will be more likely to get his way.

Advertisement

He has frequently complained that he made a mistake in his first term by appointing aides like Kelly, Milley and Bolton, who believed it was their duty to restrain the president’s ill-considered impulses. If he gets a second term, he’ll surround himself with more people who will do his bidding without raising pesky questions.

He’ll run into less opposition from other institutions too.

Republicans in Congress, who occasionally restrained Trump when he was president, have purged most of the moderates from their ranks. Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah is retiring. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, an occasional Trump critic, will no longer be his party’s leader in the Senate.

Federal courts may be more hospitable, too, thanks to judges Trump appointed his first time around.

So moderate Republicans and independents who are tempted to vote for Trump because they hope he will lower taxes or improve the economy should think long and hard about the risks of that bargain.

Advertisement

When Trump says he’ll order prosecutors to go after Joe Biden and “the Pelosis,” he means it. When Trump says he’ll punish businesses like Amazon if he doesn’t like their owners’ views, he means it. When Trump says he believes the Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president,” he means it.

And this time, he would know better how to turn his wishes into reality. A second Trump term wouldn’t be a benign rerun of the first version. As his former aides are trying their best to warn us, it would be far worse.

Politics

House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities

Published

on

House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities

Twelve House Democrats who last year sued the Trump administration over a policy limiting congressional oversight of immigrant detention facilities returned to federal court Monday to challenge a second, new policy imposing further limits on such unannounced visits.

In December, those members of Congress won their lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy from June that required a week’s notice from lawmakers before an oversight visit. Now they’re accusing Homeland Security of having “secretly reimposed” the requirement last week.

In a Jan. 8 memorandum, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote that “Facility visit requests must be made a minimum of seven (7) calendar days in advance. Any requests to shorten that time must be approved by me.”

The lawmakers who challenged the policies are led by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and include five members from California: Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) and Norma Torres (D-Pomona).

Advertisement

Last summer, as immigration raids spread through Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, many Democrats including those named in the lawsuit were denied entry to local detention facilities. Before then, unannounced inspections had been a common, long-standing practice under congressional oversight powers.

“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will…and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” the plaintiffs wrote in a federal court motion Monday requesting an emergency hearing.

On Saturday, three days after Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, three members of Congress from Minnesota attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis. They were denied access.

Afterward, lawyers for Homeland Security notified the lawmakers and the court of the new policy, according to the court filing.

In a joint statement, the plaintiffs wrote that “rather than complying with the law, the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to get around this order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy.”

Advertisement

“This is unacceptable,” they said. “Oversight is a core responsibility of Members of Congress, and a constitutional duty we do not take lightly. It is not something the executive branch can turn on or off at will.”

Congress has stipulated in yearly appropriations packages since 2020 that funds may not be used to prevent a member of Congress “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”

That language formed the basis of the decision last month by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, who found that lawmakers cannot be denied entry for visits “unless and until” the government could show that no appropriations money was being used to operate detention facilities.

In her policy memorandum, Noem wrote that funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which supplied roughly $170 billion toward immigration and border enforcement, are not subject to the limitations of the yearly appropriations law.

“ICE must ensure that this policy is implemented and enforced exclusively with money appropriated by OBBBA,” Noem said.

Advertisement

Noem said the new policy is justified because unannounced visits pull ICE officers away from their normal duties. “Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions,” she wrote.

The lawmakers, in the court filing, argued it’s clear that the new policy violates the law.

“It is practically impossible that the development, promulgation, communication, and implementation of this policy has been, and will be, accomplished — as required — without using a single dollar of annually appropriated funds,” they wrote.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

Published

on

Video: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

new video loaded: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

transcript

transcript

Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

Minnesota and Illinois filed federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, claiming that the deployment of immigration agents to the Minneapolis and Chicago areas violated states’ rights.

This is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities and Minnesota, and it must stop. We ask the courts to end the D.H.S. unlawful behavior in our state. The intimidation, the threats, the violence. We ask the courts to end the tactics on our places of worship, our schools, our courts, our marketplaces, our hospitals and even funeral homes.

Advertisement
Minnesota and Illinois filed federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, claiming that the deployment of immigration agents to the Minneapolis and Chicago areas violated states’ rights.

By Jackeline Luna

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Rep Ro Khanna demands prosecution of ICE agent in Minneapolis fatal shooting

Published

on

Rep Ro Khanna demands prosecution of ICE agent in Minneapolis fatal shooting

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., called for the arrest and prosecution of the ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good in a residential neighborhood of Minneapolis, Minnesota on Jan. 7.

Khanna also urged Congress to back his legislation with Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, to require ICE agents to wear body cameras, display visible identification, stop wearing masks during operations and be subject to independent oversight.

In a post shared on X, the former Obama administration official said: “I am calling for the arrest and prosecution of the ICE agent that shot and killed Renee Good.”

“I am also calling on Congress to support my bill with @JasmineForUS to force ICE agents to wear body cameras, not wear masks, have visible identification, and ensure ICE has independent oversight,” Khanna added.

Advertisement

MINNESOTA BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION DROPS OUT OF ICE-INVOLVED SHOOTING INVESTIGATION

An ICE agent shot and killed the 37-year-old Minneapolis woman during a federal enforcement operation in south Minneapolis. Federal officials have said agents were attempting to make arrests when the woman tried to use her vehicle as a weapon against officers, prompting an ICE agent to fire in self-defense.

Good’s death sparked widespread protests in Minneapolis and across the U.S. as demonstrators called for changes to federal immigration enforcement.

Renee Nicole Good moments before she was shot and killed by a federal agent in Minneapolis.  (Obtained by Fox News)

Local officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, criticized the federal account of the incident and rejected the claim that the officer acted in self-defense. Minnesota has since sued the Trump administration, claiming the immigration enforcement surge in the state is “unlawful” and “unprecedented.”

Advertisement

“What we are seeing right now is not normal immigration enforcement,” Frey said. “The scale is wildly disproportionate, and it has nothing to do with keeping people safe.”

The Trump administration pushed back sharply against the lawsuit, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accusing Minnesota leaders of undermining public safety and obstructing federal law enforcement.

MINNESOTA SUES TRUMP ADMIN OVER SWEEPING IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN TWIN CITIES

Federal officials, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, maintained that the agent fired in self-defense.

Renee Good’s crashed car after the shooting. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Noem critisized Democrats on Sunday amid an Illinois lawmaker’s push to impeach her following the deadly shooting.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“These law enforcement officers are trained to be in situations that are dangerous, and they rely on that training each and every day to make the right decisions,” Noem said during “Sunday Morning Futures.” 

Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending