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.