Podcast Summary: "Would U.S. Generals Obey Illegal Trump Orders?"

The David Frum Show (The Atlantic), October 29, 2025
Host: David Frum
Guest: Tom Nichols (The Atlantic, expert on U.S. military policy)

Episode Overview

This episode explores the escalating crisis in American civil-military relations under the second Trump administration, focusing on whether U.S. generals and military officers would obey potentially illegal orders from President Trump. David Frum and guest Tom Nichols analyze the mechanics of how a malign president could undermine military professionalism and the rule of law, and discuss what levers (if any) exist to stop a president intent on abusing the armed forces for personal and political ends. The dangers of politicized stupidity and public disengagement are contrasted with the urgent need for moral courage and resistance.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Concept of "Politicized Stupidity" in Public Discourse

• Frum's Opening Riff (00:07–08:25)
  • Frum rails against "politicized stupidity," where people deliberately refuse to acknowledge the unique abuses and lawlessness of the Trump administration, instead offering false equivalence or evasions.
  • Notable Quote:
    “Genuine stupidity is a misfortune and is distributed by God. But the politicized stupidity is chosen, and it’s chosen for reasons.” — David Frum (03:00)
  • He offers current examples:
    • Trump’s demolition of the East Wing for a personal ballroom funded by wealthy donors and entities with government business, bypassing any normal process.
    • Corruption in presidential pardons benefiting Trump’s allies and associates.
    • Tariffs and policy decisions made out of personal pique rather than national interest.

2. How Would a "Criminally Intended" President Gain Control of the Military?

• Strategic Capture of Institutions (10:30–13:27)
  • Nichols lays out a step-by-step strategy:
    1. “Seize the Justice Department”—not merely by appointing a new Attorney General, but by purging career lawyers devoted to the Constitution and rule of law.
    2. Fire Military Lawyers within the Pentagon, replacing them with loyalists.
    3. Insist on direct loyalty from top commanders, cutting them off from independent legal opinions or reliable intelligence.
    4. Neuter the Intelligence Community, so foreign threats to elections or administration interests are ignored.
  • Bureaucratic inertia and chain-of-command deference are exploited:
    “Officers are required to begin from the presumption of legality with an order.” — Tom Nichols (13:27)

3. The Burden on Military Officers: Legal Orders vs. Obedience

• Practical Chains of Command (13:27–14:41)
  • Most officers trust that orders have been properly vetted as legal because of the system's framework.
  • The risk: if the vetting process is corrupted at the top, illegal orders can flow unimpeded down the ranks.
  • Memorable Example:
    • If an order comes to destroy a civilian boat, a commander may assume it’s legal since higher officials must have signed off.

4. Who Holds the Line? The Collapse of Internal Checks

• Chain of Accountability (17:06–19:19)
  • Responsibility falls on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense to intervene against illegal orders.
  • Reality: Key roles (SecDef, SecNav, etc.) now filled by unqualified loyalists unlikely to object.
  • The system is not designed to leave the ultimate moral/legal decision to a lieutenant colonel or field-level officer.
  • Quote:
    “The chain of command... it’s really not supposed to get to some lieutenant colonel or commander on a ship to say, ‘Wait a minute, I don’t think this is legal.’” — Tom Nichols (18:48)

5. The National Guard, ICE, and Election Disruption

• Abuse of Domestic Force (19:19–23:23)
  • Trump’s use of National Guard in cities, and the idea of deploying military/Guard to disrupt elections (by, e.g., preventing “illegal aliens” from voting in swing-state suburbs).
  • Tactics are deliberately layered: ICE or federal agents detain individuals; military or Guard used as “protection.”
  • Quote:
    “We’re not doing domestic policing. We’re simply securing federal installations, protecting federal employees, because the state or the local municipality either can’t or won’t do it.” — Tom Nichols (23:06)

6. The Real Prize: Disrupting the 2026 Elections

• Elections as Existential Threat (23:23–25:16)
  • Frum argues: the central “game” is disrupting or discrediting the 2026 congressional elections, preventing investigation into Trump administration corruption.
  • Control over seating in the House could allow Trump loyalists to retain power regardless of actual vote outcomes.

7. The Chilling Effect and Voter Suppression

• Using Military Presence to Deter Turnout (25:16–27:45)
  • The aim is not necessarily mass arrests, but to “intimidate people out of the public square,” discouraging voter turnout.
  • Quote:
    “The goal of everything Trump is doing is to drive people out of the public square... The goal is to avert a large Democratic turnout.” — Tom Nichols (25:41)

8. The Military as a Tool for Personal Power

• Connecting Foreign Adventurism & Domestic Control (29:24–33:15)
  • Discussion of Trump’s legal justifications (or lack thereof) for military action in the Caribbean and potential expansion to the Mexican or Venezuelan mainland.
  • No legal treaties or congressional authorizations underpin current actions; this is a new assertion of limitless executive power.

9. The Perennial Drug War and Scapegoating Foreigners

• Drug Policy as Pretext (33:15–37:16)
  • “War on drugs” repeatedly surfaces as a tool to blame foreigners and justify militarization—despite overwhelming evidence demand is a domestic problem.
  • Anecdotes about past drug policy failures and false hopes for magical solutions.

10. The Real Objective: Militarizing Political Problems

• Training Military to Commit Unlawful Acts (37:16–41:55)
  • Nichols and Frum agree: military interventions (e.g., in Latin America) are not about drugs, but about training the military to follow problematic orders.
  • Trump sees the military as uniquely available to him—expecting loyalty and secrecy that the civilian federal workforce does not provide.
  • Early retirements among commanders (e.g., in SOUTHCOM) are a “tell”—Nichols says public resignation and testimony are now a duty, not just a career move.

11. Would Generals Disobey a Directly Illegal Order?

• Constitutional Red Lines (46:25–49:18)
  • Hypothetical: if ordered to attack a NATO ally (e.g., Greenland), would officers refuse?
  • Nichols expresses qualified optimism:
    “I have to think that there are, even at lower levels, are going to be officers who are going to say, ‘I’m not doing that, I’m not.’” (47:26)

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• Frum on refusing to capitulate (Rhinoceros play): (51:01)

  “I’ll take on the whole lot of them. I’ll put up a fight against them to the end. I’m the last man left, and I’m staying that way until the end. I’m not capitulating.”

• Nichols on the essence of Trump’s approach: (37:24 & 38:11)

  “I don’t think Donald Trump cares a whit about fentanyl… For him, everything is graded in terms of how does this affect me and help me.” “Every bad thing—if you’re unemployed, it’s because of the Chinese. If your kid is taking drugs, it’s because of the Mexicans.”

• On the dangers for democracy:
  “If people are getting killed, if the president is turning the military into a hit squad, you need to say something.” — Tom Nichols (39:17)

Key Timestamps

• 00:07–08:25 – Frum’s opening critique of “politicized stupidity” and Trump-era abuses
• 09:00–10:30 – Introduction of guest Tom Nichols and his background
• 10:30–13:27 – How a president could subvert the military's loyalty to the Constitution
• 13:27–14:41 – The dangers of corrupted legal advice and chain-of-command inertia
• 17:06–19:19 – Who is responsible for halting illegal orders?
• 19:19–23:23 – National Guard, ICE, and the militarization of election disruption
• 23:23–27:45 – Military presence as intimidation; using paramilitaries to suppress turnout
• 29:24–33:15 – Legality of military action abroad and absence of congressional oversight
• 33:15–37:16 – The persistent myth of the drug war and blaming foreigners
• 37:16–41:55 – The “real” purpose: conditioning the military to follow unlawful orders
• 46:25–49:18 – Would officers obey blatantly illegal orders against NATO allies?
• 51:01–53:00 – Reflection on Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros and the necessity of moral choice

Conclusion: The Moral Challenge

Frum closes by reflecting on the lesson of Ionesco’s Rhinoceros: before any grand plan for defending democracy, there is a moral decision not to capitulate, even if that means standing alone. Only once that decision is made can further action follow. Both Frum and Nichols warn that American democracy’s survival depends on individuals, especially those wielding power, making that choice to resist when it matters most.

For more insightful discussion, subscribe to The Atlantic and catch future episodes of The David Frum Show.