Politics
News Analysis: Trump's transition moves raise fears of a politicized military
WASHINGTON — Critics of President-elect Donald Trump have long contended that he aspires to use the U.S. military — a nonpartisan force, by rule and tradition — as an instrument of the MAGA agenda that propelled his latest election victory.
Now, in the eyes of some, those concerns are being supercharged.
The relationship of the executive branch and the military has always been a balancing act. The American president is, after all, the commander in chief of the world’s most formidable fighting machine, and the figure ultimately responsible for the nation’s safety and security.
But every senior military officer also takes an oath to defend the Constitution, and pledges to refuse illegal, unconstitutional or criminal directives. During his campaign, Trump flirted with those boundaries, repeatedly musing about using the military to go after domestic political opponents, or to aid in mass deportations of illegal immigrants.
Despite a pledge to be a president who presides over peace rather than war, Trump takes office against a backdrop of global upheaval: wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the increasing closeness of Russia and North Korea, an ascendant China.
Trump rattled wide swaths of the U.S. defense establishment this week with a draft executive order, whose existence was reported Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, to create a special panel — dubbed a “warrior board” — that would have the power to force out high-ranking generals and admirals.
“I think people should be concerned, in the military and out of it, about the politicization of the military, and the attempt to use it to do the president’s personal will,” said Benjamin Friedman, policy director of the Washington-based think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates for restraint in U.S. foreign policy.
He called the proposed commission a “bad idea.”
The creation of such a panel, if it came to fruition, would facilitate the purging of military leaders who were unwilling to carry out presidential orders — or those relayed by a loyal subordinate. For some, that brand of fealty is in line with Trump’s choice for his secretary of Defense: conservative Fox News personality and military combat veteran Pete Hegseth.
The pick, unveiled Tuesday, drew immediate pushback from some influential veterans groups and current and former lawmakers, who suggested that Hegseth’s ideological leanings, rather than any demonstrated expertise, lay behind him being tapped to run the vast U.S. defense complex. Hegseth, on TV, podcasts and books, has railed against what he calls the “woke” military.
“Pete Hegseth is wholly unqualified to head the Department of Defense and hold the lives of our troops in his hands — period,” Paul Eaton, a former U.S. Army officer and chairman of VoteVets, a nonprofit group that supports veterans and progressive causes, said in a statement.
“I don’t think Hegseth is a serious person or a serious pick,” Rep. Pat Ryan, a New York Democrat and an Army veteran, told MSNBC.
However, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who has committed to enacting Trump’s agenda, called Hegseth “a tireless advocate for America’s soldiers and veterans,” saying the weekend “Fox & Friends” co-host would bring “a fresh perspective” to the Pentagon.
“Pete is dedicated to ensuring that our military is focused on lethality and readiness, not woke ideology,” Johnson said in a statement. “He served our country faithfully in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq and is a believer in peace through strength and the America First agenda.”
Hegseth’s loyalty is significant, because Trump has previously demonstrated willingness to extend his decision-making reach into matters traditionally left to Pentagon leaders. In his first White House tenure, he went through five Defense secretaries in four years.
At least two of those relationships with civilian Pentagon chiefs — retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis and Army combat veteran Mark Esper — resulted in open acrimony, despite a long-standing reluctance on the part of current and retired military officers to publicly criticize the commander in chief.
Such reticence might be exacerbated by the existence of the so-called warrior board. According to the Journal, the panel would consist of ranking retired officers who were empowered to recommend removal of former peers deemed to be “lacking in requisite leadership qualities.”
What exactly those leadership qualities might entail was left vague. But the report quickly raised fears in the context of harsh criticism by Trump and those in his inner circle of “woke generals” — a catchall phrase for those who are derided for allegedly promoting diversity and inclusion at the expense of military readiness.
The “warrior board” proposal takes on broader significance in light of growing fears that Trump will move swiftly to reshape institutions such as the armed forces.
One reason the subject is so sensitive is that accounts of some of Trump’s unorthodox first-term dealings with serving and retired military officials are fresh in the minds of many, aired in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.
The former president’s longest-serving chief of staff, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, made waves with a series of interviews in which he disclosed that Trump spoke wistfully of the loyalty of Hitler’s Nazi generals, and said he believed that Trump’s views aligned with “the general definition of fascist.”
Elements of that assessment were echoed by the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now-retired Gen. Mark Milley, who told Watergate journalist and author Bob Woodward that he considered Trump “fascist to the core.”
In a retirement speech in September 2023, Milley — who worries about being recalled to active duty and court-martialed under a new Trump administration, according to Woodward’s latest book, “War” — offered an indirect commentary widely presumed to refer to the former president: “We don’t take an oath to a king or a queen, to a tyrant or dictator, or wannabe dictator.”
Trump has fired back at such comments, calling Kelly a “total degenerate” in a post last month on TruthSocial.
“John Kelly is a LOWLIFE, and a bad General, whose advice in the White House I no longer sought, and told him to MOVE ON!”
During Trump’s first run for the White House, some of the then-candidate’s commentary on military-related matters would have stopped other political careers in their tracks: his derisive reference to war hero John McCain (“I like people who didn’t get captured”) and his public spat with a Gold Star family.
In the just-ended campaign, Trump also hammered the outgoing administration — first President Biden, and then Vice President Kamala Harris when she took up the fight after Biden dropped out — over the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2022 after the Taliban takeover, insisting that those who oversaw the pullout should have been fired.
It was Trump, however, who had set the U.S. departure from Afghanistan in motion, setting a timetable that left his successor in office with a narrow range of options.
To scholars of authoritarianism, asserting a high degree of personal control over the military is typical of global strongmen in the mold of Syria’s Bashar Assad or Russian President Vladimir Putin. Prominent experts such as historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat say that under classic authoritarianism, the military is viewed as a tool for pursuing the leader’s own aims, rather than upholding the state’s interests and safeguarding its people.
In a 2021 essay, she cited Trump’s “intensive efforts to chip away at the apolitical nature of the American military” as a means of using the armed forces to help him try to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.
But Trump’s transition moves on defense are seen by many observers as likely to be constrained by factors including the ethics adhered to by the military’s officer class, combined with the sheer weight of Pentagon bureaucracy.
“The kind of outcome where you have a military that is used as the tool of a despot — I don’t think we’re particularly close to that,” said Friedman, of Defense Priorities. “The military will remain professional and apolitical.”
Nonetheless, Trump made clear his determination to leave his mark on the U.S. armed forces, consisting of about 1.3 million active-duty troops and another 1.4 million serving in the National Guard.
In announcing his choice of the “courageous and patriotic” Hegseth for the top defense job, Trump again touted his self-described policy of “peace through strength” — deterrence underpinned by a willingness to use military force when necessary.
“America’s enemies are on notice,” he declared.
Politics
Federal judge blocks Trump administration from enforcing mail-in voting rules in executive order
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge in Washington state on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of an executive order that sought to change how states administer federal elections, ruling the president lacked authority to apply those provisions to Washington and Oregon.
U.S. District Judge John Chun held that several provisions of Executive Order 14248 violated the separation of powers and exceeded the president’s authority.
“As stated by the Supreme Court, although the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, ‘[i]n the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,’” Chun wrote in his 75-page ruling.
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER
Residents drop mail-in ballots in an official ballot box outside the Tippecanoe branch library on Oct. 20, 2020 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital in a statement: “President Trump cares deeply about the integrity of our elections and his executive order takes lawful actions to ensure election security. This is not the final say on the matter and the Administration expects ultimate victory on the issue.”
Washington and Oregon filed a lawsuit in April contending the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March violated the Constitution by attempting to set rules for how states conduct elections, including ballot counting, voter registration and voting equipment.
DOJ TARGETS NONCITIZENS ON VOTER ROLLS AS PART OF TRUMP ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH
“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in response to the Jan. 9 ruling, according to The Associated Press. “The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief.”
President Donald Trump speaks during a breakfast with Senate and House Republicans at the White House, Nov. 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Executive Order 14248 directed federal agencies to require documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms and sought to require that absentee and mail-in ballots be received by Election Day in order to be counted.
The order also instructed the attorney general to take enforcement action against states that include such ballots in their final vote tallies if they arrive after that deadline.
“We oppose requirements that suppress eligible voters and will continue to advocate for inclusive and equitable access to registration while protecting the integrity of the process. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote and to have their votes counted,” said Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs in a statement issued when the lawsuit was filed last year.
Voting booths are pictured on Election Day. (Paul Richards/AFP via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“We will work with the Washington Attorney General’s Office to defend our constitutional authority and ensure Washington’s elections remain secure, fair, and accessible,” Hobbs added.
Chun noted in his ruling that Washington and Oregon do not certify election results on Election Day, a practice shared by every U.S. state and territory, which allows them to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day as long as the ballots were postmarked on or before that day and arrived before certification under state law.
Politics
Deadly ICE shooting in Minnesota, affordability stir up California gubernatorial forums
Just days after the fatal shooting of a Minnesota woman by a federal immigration agent, the Trump administration’s immigration policy was a top focus of California gubernatorial candidates at two forums Saturday in Southern California.
The death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, inflamed the nation’s deep political divide and led to widespread protests in Los Angeles and across the country about President Trump’s combative immigration policies.
Former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, speaking at a labor forum featuring Democratic candidates in Los Angeles, said that federal agents aren’t above the law.
“You come into our state and you break one of our f— … laws, you’re going to be criminally charged. That’s it,” he said.
Federal officials said the deadly shooting was an act of self-defense.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) noted that the president of the labor union that organized the candidate forum, David Huerta, was injured and arrested during the Trump administration’s raids on undocumented people in Los Angeles in June.
“Ms. Good should be alive today. David, that could have been you, the way they’re conducting themselves,” he said to Huerta, who was moderating the event. “You’re now lucky if all they did was drag you by the hair or throw you in an unmarked van, or deport a 6-year-old U.S. citizen battling stage 4 cancer.”
Roughly 40 miles south at a separate candidate forum featuring the top two Republicans in the race, GOP candidate and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said politicians who support so-called “sanctuary state” policies should be voted out of office.
“I wish it was the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s — we’d take them behind the shed and beat the s— out of them,” he said.
“We’re in a church!” an audience member was heard yelling during a livestream of the event.
California Democratic leaders in 2017 passed a landmark “sanctuary state” law that limits cooperation between local and federal immigration officers, a policy that was a reaction to the first Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up deportations.
After the campaign to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom was largely obscured last year by natural disasters, immigration raids and the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts, the 2026 governor’s race is now in the spotlight.
Eight Democratic candidates appeared at a forum sponsored by SEIU United Service Workers West, which represents more than 45,000 janitors, security officers, airport service employees and other workers in California.
Many of the union’s members are immigrants, and a number of the candidates referred to their familial roots as they addressed the audience of about 250 people — with an additional 8,000 watching online.
“As the son of immigrants, thank you for everything you did for your children, your grandchildren, to give them that chance,” former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told two airport workers who asked the candidates questions about cuts to state services for immigrants.
“I will make sure you have the right to access the doctor you and your family need. I will make sure you have a right to have a home that will keep you safe and off the streets. I will make sure that I treat you the way I would treat my parents, because you worked hard the way they did.”
The Democrats broadly agreed on most of the pressing issues facing California, so they tried to differentiate themselves based on their records and their priorities.
Candidates for California’s next governor including Tony Thurmond, speaking at left, participate in the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidate Forum in Los Angeles on Saturday.
(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)
“I firmly believe that your campaign says something about who you will be when you lead. The fact that I don’t take corporate contributions is a point of pride for me, but it’s also my chance to tell you something about who I am and who I will fight for,” said former Rep. Katie Porter.
“Look, we’ve had celebrity governors. We’ve had governors who are kids of other governors, and we’ve had governors who look hot with slicked back hair and barn jackets. You know what? We haven’t had a governor in a skirt. I think it’s just about … time.”
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, seated next to Porter, deadpanned, “If you vote for me, I’ll wear a skirt, I promise.”
Villaraigosa frequently spoke about his roots in the labor movement, including a farmworker boycott when he was 15 years old.
“I’ve been fighting for immigrants my entire life. I have fought for you the entire time I’ve been in public life,” he said. “I know [you] are doing the work, working in our buildings, working at the airport, working at the stadiums. I’ve talked to you. I’ve worked with you. I’ve fought for you my entire life. I’m not a Johnny-come-lately to this unit.”
The candidates were not asked about a proposed ballot measure to tax the assets of billionaires that one of SEIU-USWW’s sister unions is trying to put on the November ballot. The controversial proposal has divided Democrats and prompted some of the state’s wealthiest residents to move out of the state, or at least threaten to do so.
But several of the candidates talked about closing tax loopholes and making sure the wealthy and businesses pay their fair share of taxes.
“We’re going to hold corporations and billionaires accountable. We’re going to be sure that we are returning power to the workers who know how to grow this economy,” said former state Controller Betty Yee.
State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond highlighted his proposal to tax billionaires to fund affordable housing, healthcare and education.
“And then I’m going to give you, everyone in this room and California working people, a tax credit so you have more money in your pocket, a couple hundred dollars a month, every month, for the rising cost of gas and groceries,” he said.
Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer said closing corporate tax loopholes would result in $15 billion to $20 billion in new annual state revenue that he would spend on education and healthcare programs.
“When we look at where we’re going, it’s not about caring, because everyone on this stage cares. It’s not about values. It’s about results,” he said, pointing to his backing of successful ballot measures to close a corporate tax loophole, raise tobacco taxes, and stop oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.
“I have beaten these special interests, every single time with the SEIU,” he said. “We’ve done it. We’ve been winning. We need to keep fighting together. We need to keep winning together.”
Republican gubernatorial candidates were not invited to the labor gathering. But two of the state’s top GOP contenders were among the five candidates who appeared Saturday afternoon at a “Patriots for Freedom” gubernatorial forum at Calvary Chapel WestGrove in Orange County. Immigration, federal enforcement and homelessness were also among the hot topics there.
Days after Bianco met with unhoused people on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles and Newsom touted a 9% decrease in the number of unsheltered homeless people during his final state of the state address, Bianco said that he would make it a “crime” for anyone to utter the word “homeless,” arguing that those on the street are suffering from drug- and alcohol-induced psychosis, not a lack of shelter.
Former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton criticized the “attacks on our law enforcement offices, on our ICE agents who are doing their job protecting our country.”
“We are sick of it,” he said at the Garden Grove church while he also questioned the state’s decision to spend billions of dollars for healthcare for low-income undocumented individuals. State Democrats voted last year to halt the enrollment of additional undocumented adults in the state’s Medi-Cal program starting this year.
Politics
Video: Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night
new video loaded: Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night
transcript
transcript
Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night
Hundreds of protesters marched through downtown Minneapolis on Friday night. They stopped at several hotels along the way to blast music, bang drums and play instruments to try to disrupt the sleep of immigration agents who might be staying there. Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis said there were 29 arrests but that it was mostly a “peaceful protest.”
-
The vast majority of people have done this right. We are so deeply appreciative of them. But we have seen a few incidents last night. Those incidents are being reviewed, but we wanted to again give the overarching theme of what we’re seeing, which is peaceful protest. And we wanted to say when that doesn’t happen, of course, there are consequences. We are a safe city. We will not counter Donald Trump’s chaos with our own brand of chaos here. We in Minneapolis are going to do this right.
By McKinnon de Kuyper
January 10, 2026
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology5 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX3 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Dallas, TX6 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Delaware2 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Iowa5 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Health1 week agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Montana24 hours agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says