When I was an officer in the U.S. military, I abstained from voting in national elections, one small way to keep the armed forces nonpartisan. Now, to uphold that same value and prevent the military from becoming a political tool, I believe that in November, everyone — civilians, service members, veterans, everyone — should vote for whoever has the best chance to keep Donald Trump out of office.

This is not a political statement. This is a strategic judgment based on fitness to lead — both to defend the United States and to protect the civilian-military balance that has enabled our nation to become the greatest in history.

Today’s U.S. military is the world’s most powerful weapon, and in the wrong hands it could become a potent political tool as well. This weapon must not be placed under an unfit commander in chief, as the former president showed himself to be during the previous administration and as he has vowed to be again if he regains power.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but an American who has fought in the forces that guard our country and our way of life, in the words of our military’s Code of Conduct. I fought in Iraq, earned two Bronze Stars and taught military strategy at West Point. My commitment to military values and nonpartisanship hasn’t changed since I rejoined civilian life. What’s changed is the choice presented in American politics. There really isn’t one, because one of the two major-party presidential candidates is clearly, demonstrably, irredeemably unfit to serve as commander in chief.

Only one candidate has suggested the execution of a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Only one candidate has called our war dead — specifically, the Marines who fell at Belleau Wood in France during World War I — “suckers” and “losers.”

Only one candidate has suggested putting NASCAR drivers and college coaches in critical national security positions now held by lifelong military professionals who serve as generals and admirals.

All those are awful enough.

But what settles the question altogether is the certainty that former President Trump would end the military’s bedrock contract with the American people: nonpartisanship. He tried last time and came dangerously close.

Nonpartisanship isn’t simply a nice tradition. It’s the two-factor authentication that’s been at the heart of our nation’s defense for decades. The former president instead wants military leadership that mimics the Nazi high command.

“You f— generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?” Trump complained to his chief of staff, retired Gen. John Kelly, in 2018. Trump clarified that he wanted generals who were “totally loyal” and “yes-men,” like the Nazi commanders under Adolf Hitler.

Since America’s founding, there’s been a tension between the military and the rest of the nation’s leadership. The monopoly on violence is necessary. But monopoly means placing immense lethal power in a small, select group.

James Madison worried that “armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” But the Revolution persuaded George Washington that a competent standing military was necessary for the country’s survival.

Over time a bargain solidified. America permitted a professional military, not loyal to a party or a president, but to all the people through an oath to uphold the Constitution. The country even granted a certain amount of autonomy in strategic matters. In exchange, the military would remain nonpartisan. It would work to earn the nation’s trust and subordinate itself to civilian leadership. Military leaders engage in an “unequal dialogue” with their civilian superiors, in scholar Eliot Cohen’s phrase. This preserves the best military advice possible while staying deferential to America’s civilian leaders. There is, of course, occasional friction between presidents and generals — well worth it to maintain this pillar of national defense.

Trump wanted to destroy that pillar. Given a second term, he probably would. In its place he would enforce a subservience that would end the ability of America’s military to provide its best (or much of any) advice on peace and war. Trump would deploy the military as a political prop in service of his own brand, as he already tried to do. And he would reshape the military and the national security apparatus so that Trumpists would rise and others would not. His second term would be staffed by those prepared to “rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions” based on pro-Trump partisan qualifications, as described in the Project 2025 playbook.

This very same mistake was an enormous Nazi failure: Hitler broke the German generals, and so his decisions went unchecked and included some of the worst strategic moves in the history of warfare.

The immediate threat of a modern commander in chief who favors the Nazi approach would be the inappropriate use of military force on America’s streets (and perhaps even at polling places). The longer threat for this kind of recklessness is unknowable but foreseeable: eroding remaining trust in the military, eviscerating the civilian-military balance, ending America’s centuries-long success story.

“It is easy to destroy an organization,” wrote retired Adm. William McRaven, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, “if you have no appreciation for what makes that organization great.” McRaven penned those words five years ago, during the former president’s first term in office, and ended by suggesting that if nothing were to change, someone else must serve as commander in chief.

Nothing about Trump has changed. There is only one choice on Nov. 5.

ML Cavanaugh recently retired after 25 years in the U.S. Army. He co-founded the Modern War Institute at West Point. @MLCavanaugh

Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, on Saturday called former President Trump’s offer to debate Vice President Kamala Harris on Fox News in September a “masterstroke.”

“I think it’s great,” Trump’s vice presidential pick told SiriusXM’s “Breitbart News Saturday.” “In some ways, it’s a masterstroke because, of course, the Kamala campaign has been saying for a long time that President Trump is afraid to debate Kamala Harris, which, of course, is absurd because the last time he debated their nominee, that nominee withdrew two weeks later.” 

President Biden pulled out of the race and endorsed Harris as the nominee last month after his weak debate performance in late June drew concerns from Democrats.

Late Friday night, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “I have agreed with FoxNews to debate Kamala Harris on Wednesday, September 4th. The Debate was previously scheduled against Sleepy Joe Biden on ABC, but has been terminated in that Biden will no longer be a participant, and I am in litigation against ABC Network and George Slopadopoulos, thereby creating a conflict of interest. 

KAMALA HARRIS FACES A DIFFICULT DECISION WITH VP PICK: STRATEGIST MATT KEELEN

“The FoxNews Debate will be held in the Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at a site in an area to be determined. The Moderators of the Debate will be Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, and the Rules will be similar to the Rules of my Debate with Sleepy Joe, who has been treated horribly by his Party – BUT WITH A FULL ARENA AUDIENCE!”

Trump and Biden had previously been scheduled to debate on Sept. 10 on ABC. 

Vance said Trump has “fairly” said about the previously scheduled debate, “I’m not going to do a debate before the Democratic National Convention because maybe they’ll switch out their nominee again.” 

The Democratic National Convention is scheduled for Aug. 19-22. 

The Ohio senator added that Trump was “throwing down the gauntlet of ‘I was willing to go to CNN,’ which is far more hostile to him than any network would be to Kamala Harris, and ‘Kamala Harris, why don’t you come and agree to a debate.

“The thing that we’ve learned about Kamala, Matt, over the last four years, is she’s incredibly bad if she’s not scripted, right?” 

13 DAYS: KAMALA HARRIS HAS NOT HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE SINCE EMERGING AS PRESUMPTIVE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

On Saturday, Harris hit back at Trump’s offer for a new debate on X, writing, “It’s interesting how ‘any time, any place’ becomes ‘one specific time, one specific safe space.’ I’ll be there on September 10th, like he agreed to. I hope to see him there.” (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Vance added that the final reason he’s thinks “it’s so smart for the president” to want an audience at the debate is “he really feeds off of human beings, which is like natural and normal for a political leader.

“You’re supposed to lead people, and to lead people you actually have to sort of like people and engage with them well,” he said. “So, him having a crowd for this debate, I think, is really important because it will show his natural leadership ability. And it also shows, frankly, that people are kind of turned off by Kamala Harris. So, I think it’s good. Hopefully, it happens, and hopefully Kamala Harris agrees to it. If she doesn’t, then, clearly, she’s the one who’s afraid to debate.”

President Biden dropped his bid for re-election after a weak debate performance against former President Trump June 27.  ( Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Harris hit back at Trump’s offer for a new debate on X Saturday, writing, “It’s interesting how ‘any time, any place’ becomes ‘one specific time, one specific safe space.’ I’ll be there on September 10th, like he agreed to. I hope to see him there.”

In the spring, Trump had called on Biden for a debate “any time, any place.” 

“Donald Trump is running scared and trying to back out of the debate he already agreed to and running straight to Fox News to bail him out,” Harris campaign communications director Michael Tyler told Fox News Digital. “He needs to stop playing games and show up to the debate he already committed to on Sept 10.”

Tyler said Harris would be at the previously scheduled ABC debate “one way or the other to take the opportunity to speak to a primetime national audience. We’re happy to discuss further debates after the one both campaigns have already agreed to. Mr. Anytime, anywhere, anyplace should have no problem with that unless he’s too scared to show up on the 10th.”

Early on a Saturday morning at Rawley Duntley Park in Lancaster — the high-desert sun blazing — George Whitesides, a Democrat running for Congress, was encircled by dozens of cheering, noisemaker-blasting volunteers.

“I really want to make sure that even the astronauts out there can hear his name!” Nadia Abrica, an organizing director with the state Democratic Party, shouted, pointing to the sky. “George! George! George!”

“Are you guys feeling fired up?” Whitesides asked the crowd. “Are you feeling ready to go? … Are we going to change the House of Representatives?”

“Yes!” they screamed.

Whitesides, a former NASA chief of staff under President Obama, is running to unseat Rep. Mike Garcia, the thrice-elected Republican incumbent, in California’s hotly contested 27th Congressional District in northern L.A. County. The race will be crucial in determining whether Republicans maintain their narrow majority in the U.S. House.

Democrats, riding the national enthusiasm unleashed by Vice President Kamala Harris’s entry into the presidential race, feel good about their chances to flip the district.

“You feel the difference — and what really helped is the re-energizing when we found out about Biden dropping out,” said Alvarez Marcos, 61, a volunteer for Whitesides. “We’re building off that.”

But after leaving the pep-rally vibe at the park to knock on doors at a nearby apartment complex, Whitesides spoke with middle-of-the-road voters who made one thing abundantly clear: Winning this purple suburban district will not be easy.

“I am not a Democrat,” said a young woman who was the first to open her door. “Are you for open borders?”

“No, ma’am,” Whitesides said, after trying to summarize his message — largely about creating local jobs — in about 90 seconds. “We’re trying to create a secure border for our country.”

In this presidential election year dominated by hyperpartisan national issues — including immigration — both Whitesides, 50, and Garcia, 48, are trying to cast themselves as a moderate and their opponent as a political hardliner.

“People are excited to bring positive change to the district, and they’re really excited to beat Mike Garcia, who they view as this extreme guy who doesn’t connect or fit with the folks in our district,” Whitesides told The Times.

Rep. Mike Garcia is looking to keep the Antelope Valley seat he has held since 2020. The race will be crucial in determining whether Republicans maintain their House majority.

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

Whitesides calls Garcia a pro-Trump sycophant and highlights the congressman’s vote against certifying the 2020 presidential election results after the Jan. 6 insurrection, as well as his vote against President Biden’s $1-trillion infrastructure bill.

Whitesides also points to Garcia’s anti-abortion record. Garcia was among the GOP congressional members who signed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and, in 2021, co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, which amounts to a nationwide abortion ban with no exceptions. (Garcia later indicated he could support such exceptions for rape, incest or threats to the mother’s health — a departure from the bill. He did not sponsor a reintroduced version.)

Garcia’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

But his backers are trying to paint Whitesides as a far-left mega-donor trying to use his personal wealth to buy a congressional seat.

As a first-time candidate, Whitesides has no voting record to scrutinize. So, Republicans have zeroed in on his hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to progressive candidates and causes.

Ben Petersen, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement that Garcia, a former Navy pilot, “has led a life of service, from flying fighter jets in combat to his mission in Congress of lowering inflation and defending public safety.”

“Voters can easily spot the difference with extreme George Whitesides, who backed legislation raising the cost of living and bankrolled radical activists attacking police and dismantling law and order,” he added, referencing Whitesides’ support of Equality California, an LGBTQ+ rights organization that prominent conservative fundraisers have dubbed a defund-the-police group. (Whitesides has touted his endorsement by Equality California.)

About an hour’s drive north of solidly liberal downtown Los Angeles, the 27th Congressional District stretches from fast-growing Santa Clarita to the Kern County line. It includes the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, as well as rural desert towns such as Acton and Pearblossom.

With its close proximity to Edwards Air Force Base, the region has deep ties to the military and aerospace industry, as reflected by the name of its recently disbanded Minor League Baseball team, the Lancaster JetHawks.

Once staunchly conservative, the district has become more favorable to Democrats, with the population growing younger and more diverse as L.A. residents moved in for more affordable housing. Redistricting after the 2020 census made CA-27 even bluer by excising conservative Simi Valley.

Just over 41% of registered voters are Democrats, and about 30% are Republicans. More than a fifth are independents, a wildcard that makes the district somewhat unpredictable.

The district voted for Biden in 2020. But in the 2022 gubernatorial race, it backed Republican state Sen. Brian Dahle over Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Though his district has more registered Democrats than Republicans, frustrations over California’s high cost of living have given GOP Rep. Mike Garcia an edge in earlier campaigns.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The district has been on the front lines of partisan warfare since Katie Hill, a millennial Democrat, unseated the Republican incumbent in 2018, only to resign less than a year later amid a sex scandal. Garcia won the seat in a special election and retained it in two subsequent elections, thrice defeating the same Democratic challenger, former state Assemblywoman Christy Smith.

In the 2020 general election, Garcia defeated Smith by just 333 votes. He won by 12,732 votes during the subsequent midterm election, when fewer people cast ballots.

The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan election handicapper, calls this year’s election a toss-up.

“When you’ve run a company that launches humans into space on a test-flight program, you kinda get used to being involved in high-stakes things,” said Whitesides, the former chief executive of Mojave-based Virgin Galactic. “We’ve got to flip the House so we can protect all these hard-won gains in healthcare and climate and jobs.”

“The Republican caucus right now is totally dysfunctional,” he added. “I”m trying to bring, like, actually getting stuff done back into focus. Wouldn’t that be great? Make the Congress work again.”

Lawrence Becker, a political scientist at Cal State Northridge, said it’s “going to be a tough election for Garcia.”

Most voters “are going to the polls with the presidential election on their minds,” he added. Trump is deeply unpopular in California, and having him at the top of the ticket “becomes a bit of a headwind that Mike Garcia has to face.”

Still, frustrations over California’s high cost of living and gas prices — potent issues for the many residents in this district who make the long commute to L.A. for work — have previously given Garcia an edge. He easily won last spring’s three-way primary election with 55% of the vote, while Whitesides got 33%.

State GOP Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said the fact that Republicans are able to be so competitive in a district where Democrats have a large registration advantage shows how much voters “are getting sick and tired of what California Democrats have been serving up to them.”

Both parties are pouring money into the race.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that supports Republicans running for the House, is planning an $18.2-million ad blitz in the L.A. area this fall, with a focus on the 27th district.

Courtney Parella, a spokeswoman for the super PAC, said Garcia has a unique biography that resonates in his district. As a Navy pilot, the congressman flew in more than 30 combat missions during Operation Iraqi Freedom before spending 11 years as an executive with the defense contractor Raytheon.

“California voters remain fed up with rising crime, chaos at our border and skyrocketing costs — all caused by Democrats’ progressive single-party rule,” Parella said in a statement. “The House majority runs through California, and CLF is committing significant resources here this fall.”

George Whitesides introduces himself to Sean and Megan Holst. “It’s supposed to be more affordable in the Antelope Valley,” Megan says. “I thought we had a decent income, and it’s still — it’s hard.”

(Zoe Cranfill / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Whitesides — who loaned his campaign more than $1 million — is outraising his opponent. As of June 30, Whitesides’ campaign had $3.9 million in the bank, according to the Federal Election Commission. Garcia’s campaign had $2.2 million on hand.

Whitesides’ campaign is seizing on accusations that Garcia hid his sale of up to $50,000 in Boeing stock in August 2020, just before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, of which he was a member, released a scathing report about the company.

According to the Daily Beast, which first reported the sale, Garcia missed the 45-day deadline to disclose the sale and filed paperwork only after narrowly winning his election that November.

A spokesman for Garcia’s campaign told Politico that Garcia had not seen the report before it became public and that his failure to disclose his stock sale was an accident.

After leaving Rawley Duntley Park that late-July Saturday, Whitesides — who has embraced his nerdy-dad vibe — donned a white NASA ball cap and brandished a 50-SPF spray can of sunscreen for his canvass of the apartment complex.

In each brief interaction, he said that, while running Virgin Galactic, he created 700 local jobs and that he was centering his campaign around job creation.

Propped in one apartment window was a license plate that read, EPDMLGY. Whitesides bounded up to the door, saying, “Epidemiology! Come on, that’s my voter.”

“I’m a moderate Democrat,” he said when Nancy Welsh, a 63-year-old pharmaceutical administrative assistant, opened the door. “I worked for NASA, so I’m a big science and facts kind of person.”

When Whitesides asked what issues were important to her, she laughed and said: “Don’t get me started.”

He stopped Megan and Sean Holst, a married couple in their early 30s, as they walked their golden retriever, Cosmo. “I know you from my dad!” said Megan, whose father planted a Whitesides yard sign outside his home on a dirt road in Acton.

Megan said she supports abortion rights and did not like Garcia’s record on the issue. But the couple — she is a clinical lab scientist and he is a programmer — are pretty moderate, she said. Mostly, they care about local issues, such as crime and cost of living. They have lived in the apartment complex for years and hope to someday be able to afford a house.

“It’s supposed to be more affordable in the Antelope Valley,” she said. “I thought we had a decent income, and it’s still — it’s hard.”

Whitesides handed her his campaign flier. She said she would consider it.