“Madness”: A Retired Brig. General Slams Trump’s Military Power Grab

Summary

Reveal Podcast Episode Summary: “Madness”: A Retired Brig. General Slams Trump’s Military Power Grab

In the gripping episode titled “Madness”: A Retired Brig. General Slams Trump’s Military Power Grab, Reveal host Al Letson engages in a profound conversation with retired Brigadier General Greg Smith to dissect the controversial deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles under former President Donald Trump. This episode delves deep into the legal, operational, and ethical implications of using military forces to enforce political agendas, highlighting the potential threats to democratic foundations.

1. Introduction to the Controversy

The episode opens with Al Letson setting the stage for the discussion. Despite a lawsuit filed in California, National Guard troops alongside Marines remain active in Los Angeles. Their role extends beyond guarding federal buildings; they are actively accompanying ICE officers on immigration raids. This deployment raises critical questions about the true intent behind their presence—whether it’s to defend the Constitution or to push a political agenda.

2. Legal Authority Behind the Deployment

Greg Smith elucidates the legal underpinnings of President Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard without the authorization of California Governor Gavin Newsom. He explains, “As soon as the president calls it to federal duty, [the California National Guard] stops becoming the State National Guard. They now have the same status as the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne” (00:38). This federal call allows the use of forces under specific authorities, such as protecting federal facilities or quelling insurrections. However, Smith points out that Trump did not invoke the more traditional Insurrection Act. Instead, he utilized an obscure section of Title 10, specifically section 12406, which permits the President to deploy forces to protect federal personnel and facilities. This unconventional move bypassed the usual state-controlled process, leading to California’s legal opposition.

3. Critique of the Los Angeles Response

Smith describes the deployment in Los Angeles as “madness” (04:54), contrasting it with his experience during the Boston Marathon bombings. He emphasizes the importance of a tiered response system aimed at achieving “unity of effort,” where all responding entities are coordinated under a unified command. In Los Angeles, however, the lack of communication and coordination between local police, the California Highway Patrol, and the federal troops created a fragmented and chaotic response, undermining effective crisis management.

4. Posse Comitatus Act and Its Relevance

The discussion shifts to the Posse Comitatus Act, a foundational principle that restricts the use of federal military personnel in domestic law enforcement. Smith provides historical context, noting, “Posse Comitatus comes out of Southern states during Reconstruction because they didn’t like Union troops stationed in Southern states enforcing voting rights” (08:12). He underscores the necessity of this act in preventing the military from overstepping its bounds in civilian affairs, advocating for its preservation to maintain the separation between military force and law enforcement.

5. Insights from the Boston Marathon Bombing

Smith shares a personal anecdote from his time during the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, illustrating effective National Guard deployment. He recounts how, following initial explosions, his unit was prepared for a potential major attack, a scenario that required rapid adaptation and coordination with local law enforcement. “The first mission in crowd control is to de-escalate the situation,” he reflects (20:29), highlighting the critical role of training in managing high-stress environments and maintaining public safety without unnecessary escalation.

6. National Guard Training and Current Concerns

The conversation delves into the training of National Guardsmen in crowd control and their preparedness to handle protests. Smith acknowledges that while some units receive comprehensive training, others may lack specific preparation for dealing with civilian demonstrations. He critiques the current deployment in Los Angeles, noting the absence of military police units trained for such operations: “I didn’t see any effort in LA for them to recruit military police. Mainly because military police will wear an armband that says MP” (23:05). Additionally, Smith criticizes the use of long arms by Guardsmen in protests, asserting that pistols are more appropriate as they are less intrusive and align better with law enforcement roles.

7. Threats to Democratic Principles

A pivotal part of the discussion centers on the alarming trend of political figures seeking to co-opt the military for partisan purposes. Smith voices deep concern over the potential erosion of democratic checks and balances: “If the military may be used to enforce a political agenda. If that happens, Al, the roots of our democracy are in extreme danger” (25:14). He stresses that the military must remain an impartial force committed to defending the Constitution, not swayed by political allegiances. This sentiment is reinforced when he responds to allegations about Secretaries of Defense showing partiality: “The president is not part of it, only in respecting the fact that he is the commander in chief of the armed forces under the Constitution. But we are devoted to the Constitution” (27:19).

8. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Al Letson wraps up the episode by highlighting the critical need for transparency and accountability in military deployments. He encourages listeners to explore further episodes that delve into related topics, such as “Trump's Mass Deportations are Decades in the Making,” which examines the systemic changes in U.S. immigration policies.

Notable Quotes:

• Greg Smith on federal deployment authority: “As soon as the president calls it to federal duty, [the California National Guard] stops becoming the State National Guard...” (00:38)
• Smith describing the LA response: “This is madness” (04:54)
• On the Posse Comitatus Act: “Posse Comitatus is a long, strictly held concept which basically says you cannot employ federal troops to conduct law enforcement activities against people within the United States” (08:12)
• Reflecting on crowd control: “The first mission in crowd control is to de-escalate the situation” (20:29)
• On military neutrality: “The military needs to be an honest broker, a fair-minded force that protects everybody regardless of what their opinions are” (25:14)
• Defending constitutional commitment: “We are devoted to the Constitution” (27:19)

Key Takeaways

• Legal Framework: The deployment of the National Guard by President Trump without state authorization raises significant legal questions, particularly concerning the misuse of Title 10 instead of the Insurrection Act.
• Operational Challenges: The lack of coordinated response mechanisms in LA contrasts sharply with successful unified commands in events like the Boston Marathon bombing.
• Military-Civilian Relations: The episode highlights the delicate balance between military support and civilian law enforcement, emphasizing the importance of maintaining military impartiality.
• Democratic Integrity: There is growing concern over the politicization of the military, which poses a threat to democratic institutions and principles.

This episode serves as a critical examination of the intersection between military authority and political agendas, urging listeners to consider the long-term implications for democracy and civil rights in the United States.

Transcript

[Greg Smith]

Not only are people starting to doubt whether the United States military would protect them because of their political leanings, but now people are becoming nervous that the military may be used to enforce a political agenda. If that happens, Al, the roots of our democracy are in extreme danger.

[Al Letson]

Despite a California lawsuit, National Guard troops and Marines are still on the ground in Los Angeles. And they're not just guarding federal buildings. They're spreading out through the city to accompany ICE officers on immigration raids. Is this about defending the Constitution, or is it about enforcing a political agenda? My guest today is retired Brigadier General Greg Smith. You're listening to More to the Story. Don't go anywhere. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states. This is More to the Story. Hello, I'm Al Edson. The National Guard has been around since colonial times. It's like the Swiss army knife of the military. Expected to cover a wide variety of tasks and skills, these civilian soldiers are called upon to help with everything from natural disasters to civil unrest. And more recently, the Trump administration ordered them into the streets of la not to just keep the peace, but to accompany ICE agents on raids. This controversial move has led to a legal battle between California Governor Gavin Newsom and the president. My guest today is retired Brigadier General Greg Smith, a teacher in civilian Life. Greg spent 35 years in the Massachusetts National Guard. Greg, thanks so much for joining me today.

[Greg Smith]

Thanks, Al. Thanks for inviting me.

[Al Letson]

Right now in Los Angeles, people are protesting ICE detentions and they were met with local police, the Marines, and the National Guard. Now, the Guard wasn't called up by Governor Gavin Newsom, but instead by President Trump. Under what authority did Trump have to order the Guard to become involved and why?

[Greg Smith]

One of the things that's not well explained in the media is that the California National Guard, as soon as the president calls it to federal duty, stops becoming the State National Guard. So they are no longer answering to the state of California for its governor. They now have the same status as the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne. They are federal troops at that point. That means that there are a whole lot of things that they can't do because they are no longer under state control. So the president, under the Insurrection act, can call up federal forces to protect federal facilities or quell an insurrection or protect citizens whose civil rights are being violated. President Johnson did this in 1965 in Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. What President Trump is alleging is that looting and property destruction are violating the civil rights of shop owners. So that's the authority he's using. But here's where it gets a little convoluted. He didn't use the Insurrection Act. He didn't say, I'm calling out the Insurrection Act. He went to an obscure section of Title 10, which governs the armed forces. And if your listeners care, it's section 12406, which authorizes the President to call up forces to protect federal facilities and federal personnel. However, the order is supposed to be executed through the state governor. That didn't happen, and that's the basis of California's lawsuit.

[Al Letson]

So, as someone who's been in the Guard and been a commander in the Guard for many years now retired, what were your thoughts on watching this LA response and how it was organized?

[Greg Smith]

I'll tell you my thoughts. My thoughts were, this is madness. Let me use the example of the Boston Marathon bombings. Civil support is a tiered response, leveled response. So when something happens, the local authorities respond. When they're overwhelmed, they say to the state, we need help. When the state resources are overwhelmed, they say to the federal government, we need help. That didn't happen here. The reason that it's a tiered response, Al, is to achieve something called unity of effort. And I'll say that again, it's a military term, but unity of effort basically says everybody is singing from the same hymnal, they're coordinated, they're moving together. There's also a concept called incident command. And what that is, is when madness is occurring, that there is one element that says, we're in command here. And the other elements say, okay, what do you need us to do? During the Marathon bombings, Boston police and the FBI did what was called a unified command. So when I'm pushing forces into the city of Boston, I'm in communication with them. Where do you need us? What do you need us to do? What resources do you need? That's not happening in la. You've got the police and the California Highway Patrol dealing with demonstrations and. And by the way, now you've got this whole other military group and there appears to be no communication between the two.

[Al Letson]

Yeah, it seems like a recipe for disaster.

[Greg Smith]

Yeah.

[Al Letson]

So the courts have gone back and forth over the legality of Trump calling the troops without Newsom. I just want to dive through that legal stuff again. So we Already Talked about Title 10. What's Title 32?

[Greg Smith]

Title 32 is Federal Funding for National Guard soldiers under the governor's command. So that's typically how you are paid and how resources are provided for an emergency, a flood, a hurricane, a wildfire. But title 32 is gubernatorial command and control. So title 32 has really nothing to do with what's going on in LA right now, because Governor Newsom has been really kind of shoved decide.

[Al Letson]

Yeah, and state active duty.

[Greg Smith]

So state active duty is when. And I worked on the state active duty a lot is when the governor says, hey, National Guard. And remember, the governor is the commander in chief of the National Guard. Hey, I need you to go sandbag that river. It's not a federal emergency, but I think it's pretty darn important from a stateside. So the money's coming out of the state budget, so. So to be honest, Al, the state active Duty Title 32 provisions are really about who pays the bill.

[Al Letson]

Right. Okay.

[Greg Smith]

They're both under the governor's command and control.

[Al Letson]

Last technical question. What is the Posse Comitatus Act?

[Greg Smith]

I'll tell you what it is, and then I'll tell you where it comes from, because it has a very interesting origin. Posse Comitatus is a long, strictly held concept which basically says you cannot employ federal troops to conduct law enforcement activities against people within the United States. Posse Comitata says law enforcement has that responsibility. Military does not. Not allowed. The only exception is the Insurrection act. And that really should only be invoked when there is a civil war. But we've seen presidents sort of use that act under less provocation. Posse Comitatus actually comes out of Southern states during Reconstruction because they didn't like Union troops stationed in Southern states enforcing voting rights. Posse Comitatus comes into the legal framework, I believe, in the 1870s or the 1880s, and it was really a move by the former Confederacy to get Union stabilization troops out of the South.

[Al Letson]

So it was used in the Civil War, but it's actually like a good idea that the government cannot use military against its citizens.

[Greg Smith]

Agreed. It's a good provision.

[Al Letson]

So we talked about this a little bit earlier, but can you tell me what is the Insurrection act, and do you think it should be applied to the protests? I mean, does that act need reform?

[Greg Smith]

Yes, yes, yes, yes. The Insurrection act needs reform. So the Insurrection Act, I'm not looking at notes, but I'm gonna say it's been used. Oh, goodness, probably a dozen times. President Eisenhower used it to desegregate schools in the South. President Bush used it in the Rodney King riots response, but that was at the request of the states. And that was the state governor saying, hey, I need help. I need federal troops in here to restore order. So that was, I would say, an appropriate use is when the governor says to the president, send help. But what's an insurrection? The courts have not defined it. And I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you I sure as heck think that January 6th was an insurrection. But we didn't have calling out the Insurrection act then. But the, the activities, the protests, the level of civil disobedience in Los Angeles, is that an insurrection? I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't look like an insurrection to me. The Insurrection act needs reform. It needs specificity. Congress needs to take that up. And if they won't, then the Supreme Court needs to rule on what constitutes an insurrection.

[Al Letson]

So you talked about this a little bit before, but I just want to go a little deeper. While you were in the National Guard, the Boston Marathon bombing happened in 2013. Tell me about that day and the role you played in command.

[Greg Smith]

So the Massachusetts National Guard, probably since the Boston Marathon began, has always secured the route along the 26 miles up to the city of Boston. So I had done that as a young officer, and it's not tough duty. Al, you're out there very early, but the job consists of the runners are coming down the route. You're turning to the people behind you in the crowd and saying, hey, can you folks step back up on the curb? And they do. It's a very simple job. You Generally, by 2 o' clock in the afternoon, life is good. However, 2013, I'm at the finish line with Staff Sergeant Patrick Smith. I could not call him my driver. He was my guardian angel, my bodyguard, my conscience. So I'm with him and he's saying, hey, let's watch more runners. And I'm saying, no, no, no, no, no. I got stuff to do. Let's get back to headquarters. We were maybe 20 minutes away from the finish line when my BlackBerry went off. And I remember the voice of Colonel Mark Merlino saying, sir, there have been explosions at the finish line. There are multiple fatalities and widespread injuries. What are your orders? Life changed very quickly. So that's why we have training. We were very concerned about something called a Mumbai style attack, where the initial explosions are actually a feint to draw responders in, and then the ultimate attack follows afterwards. Some people have criticized me for that. You know, they say, well, don't you Feel silly when it turned out to be two people? No, I don't feel silly. You always plan for the worst. So that's how things played out. I will say this, I was unhappy that we were told that we couldn't be armed. And there were some hard words exchanged about that. We paired National Guard teams with armed Boston policemen because I didn't like the idea of soldiers being exposed to danger. Well, fast forward. When the Sarnaevs came up out of hiding, we armed. We actually didn't ask at that point. We just said if we're going after armed and dangerous terrorists, we have to arm ourselves. And so we moved into Watertown and we formed the net around the sir of apprehension area. I'm very proud of what what soldiers did.

[Al Letson]

Coming up. Greg says they almost never put National Guardsmen on the street with the kinds of weapons they're using now.

[Greg Smith]

Pistols are what we put them on the street with because it looks like law enforcement. It's less intrusive and it leaves their hands free to do other things.

[Al Letson]

Did you see guardsmen with long arms in California?

[Greg Smith]

Yes.

[Al Letson]

Or at the protests in la?

[Greg Smith]

Yeah, that's all they have.

[Al Letson]

And you think that's a mistake?

[Greg Smith]

I do.

[Al Letson]

Before we get into that, it's summertime and that means more time to hang out with me, your favorite host. I know. I mean, that's just true right now. Look, I know Reveal is already queued up on that long road trip or maybe some time alone on the beach. We can hang out there. It'll be great. But listen, don't keep Reveal to yourself. Tell your friends about us. Come on, make it official. Feel free to give us a rating and review to help others discover the award winning reporting from Reveal. Okay, we'll be back soon with more from Greg Smith. Don't go anywhere.

[Greg Smith]

Hi, this is Marla from the human resources team at the center for Investigative Reporting. Subscriptions, paywalls? No, not here. We believe that groundbreaking journalism should be accessible to everyone. If you can pitch in just a little, please donate today. Just text the word give to 88857 reveal. That's 888-577-3832 or visit revealnews.org donate. No gift is too small. Thank you.

[Al Letson]

This is more to the story. I'm Al Letson and my guest today is Greg Smith, a retired Brigadier general in the National Guard. The question I have for you is that in your book, there were times where you talk about guardsmen being relentlessly taunted for hours on end by protesters. Do you think that A guard should have weapons at a protest.

[Greg Smith]

So if I can tell another story.

[Al Letson]

Yeah, please.

[Greg Smith]

When I was very, very Young, I was 24 years old. I was quickly dispatched to a civil disturbance with a force of 40 soldiers, who, by the way, were not the 40 soldiers that I usually commanded. They were the first 40 people to arrive. And somebody said, Lieutenant Smith, take those 40 people and get over and secure that state hospital. The context, which doesn't really matter, but the legislature had declined to fund the budget. The state workers who manned the hospital had gone on a payless payday. And they were angry and they wanted to shut down the hospital. But there were people in the hospital that were on life support. I'm sure you can understand the crisis, Al.

[Al Letson]

Yeah, it's tense.

[Greg Smith]

So at night we're out there trying to hold back these very angry workers who haven't been paid. Things get worse at night because people have a sense of anonymity. So there was a lot of pushing and shoving. There was a lot of spitting, kicking, those types of things. You know, soldiers are human and you can really only take so much of that before you're. You sort of become tense. So at one point, one of the protesters broke through the line and he grabbed me by the shirt and he said, I want your name. You're in charge here. I want to know who you are. I'm 24 years old, I'm an army lieutenant. He's a drunk, middle aged guy. I grabbed him by the shoulders and I pushed him back outside the picket line. And I said, I don't touch you. You don't touc. What I didn't realize is that he stumbled and he fell and everybody laughed at him. About 15 minutes later, it's pitch black, there's this scuffle and my guys are taking somebody down to the ground and the police, we had a couple of policemen with us are cuffing this guy. And I look down and I realize it's the guy who had grabbed my shirt. He had a baseball bat and he was coming to use my head as a fastball. So let me go. Five days from there. So the operation goes on. This is in the summer. Five days later, it's afternoon and I'm out looking for soldiers on the picket line because I'm back and forth in the hospital looking at our soldiers who are doing operations like feeding and changing beds and. And I can't find the picket line. It's gone. There are no protesters, there are no soldiers. And I look behind this bush and everybody is sitting in the Grass with a case of Budweiser in the middle of them. And they're all drinking their beers, having a great time. Soldiers, protesters, all together. I'm a lieutenant. This can't be drinking on duty. I took two steps forward and I said, what's the mission here? To keep peace. That's about as peaceful as anything's going to get.

[Al Letson]

Absolutely.

[Greg Smith]

So I shut my mouth and I went back to the hospital. But here's my point. On night one, we would have killed each other. On day five, we were drinking beer together. What I learned is the first mission in crowd control is to de escalate the situation. You don't push people down so that other people laugh at them to try to defuse the situation. Took me a while to learn that.

[Al Letson]

Do you think that kind of training is being given to the guards now as far as like to be able to work with protesters? I think that some of our rhetoric when we talk about these protests, when we talk about these clashes, is that the people that you are up against are like your sworn enemies and not fellow Americans. And I feel like that's the missing piece on both sides is that we're not looking at each other like we are fellow Americans, like that we all have stake in this thing and people's First Amendment rights should be respected and the give and pull between how that respect is shown. I'm just curious, is anybody being trained in that fashion?

[Greg Smith]

The answer is yes and no. Remember, Al, that as a citizen soldier who's only available for training for a relatively short period of time, there's a lot that has to be done. Weapons qualification, physical fitness, nuclear, biological and chemical training. You know, how to wear a gas mask and protect yourself. First aid, I could go on and on and on and on. Some units get very good crowd control training. When National Guardsmen go into a crowd control situation, they've got, I want to say, three priorities. One, to secure whatever it is they're securing, they're always either securing a building, protecting a group of people, or there's an objective to be secured. Two, they are making sure that no one's rights are being abused. So they are very aware of free speech rights. People can say what they want to say, do what they want to do. The line becomes fuzzy when punches are thrown. Kicks are, where is the line between assault and acting out? And the third thing is safety, to make sure that no one is hurt or killed. So they're aware of that. I'm confident that they know what they're doing there in terms of how to do it and whether they've been specifically trained on crowd control. Maybe, maybe not and probably not.

[Al Letson]

Yeah. Which does that concern you when watching what's happening in Los Angeles?

[Greg Smith]

So, you know, I certainly don't want to hold myself up as, you know, some guru, but in Massachusetts, when we had to put troops into civil support missions, we generally went to military police organizations or air security police. They have some training around this in terms of their basic job training. They also are likely to also be law enforcement personnel. Remember, when you get a guardsman, you're getting a soldier and you're getting some other profession. So mainly military police and air police units are full of cops. So putting them on the street to do crowd control is a good thing. They know how to do that. I didn't see any effort in LA for them to recruit military police. Mainly because military police will wear an armband that says mp. I didn't detect any of that. It would have been wiser for California to activate their military police units because there's a much higher level of expertise. And I will also tell you this, we very rarely, almost never put National Guardsmen on the street with long arms. Pistols are what we put them on the street with because it looks like law enforcement, it's less intrusive and it leaves their hands free to do other things.

[Al Letson]

Did you see guardsmen with long arms in California?

[Greg Smith]

Yes.

[Al Letson]

Or at the protests in la?

[Greg Smith]

Yeah. That's all they have.

[Al Letson]

And you think that's a mistake?

[Greg Smith]

I do, yeah.

[Al Letson]

So my last question to you is the National Guard has been such a huge part of your life and career. Seeing what's happening right now, how concerned are you about the Guard being used for political purposes?

[Greg Smith]

Hugely. I mean, I am a citizen soldier. I believe that what makes the United States military unique is that we don't give up our citizenship. And so therefore the military needs to be comprised of people who are progressive, conservative, socialist, I don't know, vegan, carnivores, all sorts of people. And it needs to be that way because we are a pluralistic, expansive society. And the military needs to be able to be an honest broker, a fair minded force that protects everybody regardless of what their opinions are. I'm watching the military becoming co opted by politicians and where that leads is some really troubling places. Not only are people starting to doubt whether the United States military would protect them because of their political leanings, but now people are becoming nervous that the military may be used to enforce a political agenda. If that happens al the roots of our democracy are in extreme danger. The United States military has always accepted that we work for civilian leadership. We've never challenged that. But we've also always maintained that while we work for you, you don't own us. Your party does not own us. There are questions arising about that nowadays, and that makes me fearful.

[Al Letson]

Well, it feels like that is specifically what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wants, is that he wants a military that is completely loyal to not the Constitution, but to President Trump.

[Greg Smith]

I'm very glad that you mentioned that. Commitment to defend the Constitution is the oath we swear over and over and over again. The president is not part of it, only in respecting the fact that he is the commander in chief of the armed forces under the Constitution. But we are devoted to the Constitution. So, yes, I have concerns.

[Al Letson]

Greg Smith, thank you so much for coming in and talking to me today.

[Greg Smith]

Yeah, thanks, Al. It's been a pleasure.

[Al Letson]

That was retired National Guard Brigadier General Greg Smith. If you like this interview, I really think you should check out one of our earlier episodes called Trump's Mass Deportations are Decades in the Making. It's a conversation with New Yorker staff writer Jonathan Blitzer where he breaks down how entrenched dysfunction gave Trump a window and to radically remake US Immigration. Lastly, just a reminder, we are listener supported. That means listeners like you, you can help us thrive by making a gift today. Just go to revealnews.org gift again, that's revealnews.org gift and thank you. This episode was produced by Josh Samburn, artist cheriscus and Kara McGurk Allison theme music and engineering helped by Fernando Mamano Arruda and Jay Breezy. Mr. Jim Briggs, I'm Al Letson. And you know, come on, let's do this again next week. This is more to the story.

[Greg Smith]

From prx.