Podcast Summary
The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Episode: What Does Donald Trump’s “War from Within” Mean in Practice?
Air Date: October 11, 2025
Host: Susan Glasser, with Jane Mayer and Evan Osnos
Special Guest: Corey Shockey (Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, AEI)

Overview

This episode deals with the unprecedented militarization of U.S. domestic politics under Donald Trump’s second term, specifically the deployment of the military in American cities under the banner of fighting a so-called “war from within.” Hosts Susan Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos dig into the legal, political, and historical ramifications, later joined by defense expert Corey Shockey. The discussion examines the blurred lines between national security and domestic order, legal boundaries for military force within the U.S., and the dangers of politicizing the military.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Setting the Stage: A Domestic "War"

• The episode opens with the hosts reflecting on dramatic new developments: President Trump deploying troops to cities including Washington, D.C., Portland, and Chicago (03:07), and calling for the imprisonment of political opponents such as Governor J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson.
• Trump’s recent speech to military leaders at Quantico, declaring, “It’s a war from within,” frames the justification for militarized domestic intervention (03:40).

Quote:
“Trump, in his second term, has reoriented the Pentagon around this new idea of national security, one that frames our greatest threats as coming… within America’s own borders. It’s a chilling vision of power that turns the machinery of war inward.”
– Susan Glasser (03:07)

Legal Pushback and the Courts

• Federal judges in Oregon and Illinois blocked the deployment of troops, challenging the administration’s claim of a national emergency (05:22).
• Citing Judge Immergut’s ruling: "This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law." (05:54)
• There’s uncertainty over whether these court injunctions will hold, as appeals move forward, possibly to the Supreme Court (06:56).

Conservative Opposition

• Judge Immergut, a Republican appointee with conservative credentials, is noted for standing against Trump’s action—highlighting this is not just a partisan conflict (07:20).

Quote:
“This is not exactly a left wing operative... somebody with bona fide conservative credentials who is standing up and saying, hold on a second, this does not fit the standards of the Constitution.”
– Evan Osnos (07:20)

Rhetoric vs. Reality: Framing Protest as War

• The hosts emphasize the dangerous gap between Trump's warlike rhetoric and on-the-ground reality: no insurrection is occurring, only protests (07:49).
• The administration labels drug traffickers as “narco-terrorists” and protest groups as "leftist terror networks," expanding the definition of enemy (08:31-10:39).

Quote:
“The kind of universalization of terrorism is an idea here to pay very close attention to... a network can grow, shrink, you can define it in whatever way you want.”
– Evan Osnos (09:30)

• Stephen Miller’s public posts amplifying a supposed “movement of left wing terrorism… shielded by so-called far-left Democrat judges…” push for dismantling “terror networks,” including law enforcement figures (10:39).

Quote:
“It is so amorphous it got me going back and reading Orwell… every time there’s some kind of amorphous euphemism, it usually hides some kind of hideous specific truth.”
– Jane Mayer (11:34)

Immigration Policy as Warfare

• Military deployments are closely linked to federal immigration crackdowns and mass deportations, with reports of legal and undocumented immigrants caught up in questionable ICE dragnets (11:46-13:35).
• "Mission creep" is apparent: operations ostensibly targeting criminals broaden into civil populations and become a pretext for crackdown on protests (13:35).

Quote:
“They’ve wound up having this dragnet that is bringing in mothers picking up their kids at school, thrown to the pavement… but this is not… what people expected or support.”
– Jane Mayer (13:35)

Historical Precedents and the Militarized Homeland

• The connection is traced back to the post-9/11 expansion of homeland security: the "twilight war" concept—where threats are everywhere and vague—has justified ever-expanding powers (15:14).
• The hosts underscore the “cognitive dissonance” of Trump as peacemaker abroad and war-bringer at home (17:01).

Quote:
“Trump has figured out that war as an idea is a very powerful political ingredient. He’s trying to use it as a binding agent… at home to fortify his political credentials.”
– Evan Osnos (18:25)

[21:28] Interview with Corey Shockey: Civil-Military Crisis

Shock at the Top

• Shockey calls the military’s current involvement “genuinely shocking”—civilian leaders are ordering the armed forces into political struggles, undermining the traditional separation of military and politics (22:20).
• Despite this, she praises the professionalism of senior military staff for not “cheering” at Trump’s inflammatory Quantico speech (23:35).

Quote:
“They did exactly what the professionalism of being in military service requires... had a duty to show up because the commander in chief… ordered it. And they have a duty not to participate in the politics.”
– Corey Shockey (23:44)

Limits of Military Obedience

• Military will obey legal orders, but cannot refuse them because they are “immoral” or unpopular—the chain of command is paramount (24:24).
• Worrying development: sacking of senior military legal officials (judge advocates general), potentially to secure more compliant legal opinions (24:24).

Attempts to Bypass Military Norms

• Trump attempts to sow loyalty directly among lower ranks, eroding the chain of command (27:09).
• Unlike historic presidents (Washington, Lincoln), who emphasized military restraint, Trump pushes military norms into “dangerous” new territory (27:34).

Civilian Solutions are Needed

• The military “cannot save us,” says Shockey—it must be up to the courts, governors, and especially Congress to act (28:19-30:23).
• The Insurrection Act is highlighted as a dangerous tool, with its invocation giving near-unlimited authority to the President—yet Trump so far is wary of outright invoking it due to likely public backlash (31:34).

Lack of Legal Guardrails

• No effective internal military mechanism can block illegal presidential orders under the Insurrection Act—the president determines what constitutes an insurrection (32:29).
• Historic contrast: George Washington needed judicial concurrence to use troops domestically; under the current law, only presidential judgment counts (32:55).

The Road Ahead: Red Lines, Risks, and Hope

Limits Tested

• The panel agrees the decisive factor will be legal action by governors and eventual Supreme Court rulings (35:13).
• If the Supreme Court upholds the expanded use of military force, “it will be very difficult to identify where any limits on the domestic use of military force exist” (35:15).

The Role of Other Institutions

• The group laments the reliance on the military or courts as failsafes: true checks must come from elected governors and the political process—pointing to the recent, rare criticisms of Trump’s tactics by Republican governors (40:20-41:05).
• Trump’s “War within” is partly fulfillment of powers he was denied in his first term. Worries abound that now, surrounded by more compliant advisers, he may go further (43:40).

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “[The military] cannot save us in the American system. The solutions… are civilian in Nature. It’s governors suing the federal government. It’s Congress acting… right.” – Corey Shockey (28:38)
• “Insurrection Act… an unexploded grenade… just absolute power to Trump to use the troops.” – Jane Mayer (38:09)
• “It is trained not to disregard an order even when that order is crazy. And that is a worrisome fact. It is also the bulwark of military professionalism.” – Evan Osnos (37:45)
• “You break it, you own it. The military know, they know what the dangers are. But yet… their job is to follow the order.” – Jane Mayer (39:30)
• “That insurrection Act, Donald Trump, it must be calling to him, it’s this shiny object… that he can seize.” – Susan Glasser (38:36)

Actionable Takeaways / What to Watch

• Legal Challenges: Watch for governors’ lawsuits over National Guard deployments and their progress through the courts (35:13).
• Congressional (In)action: The Insurrection Act’s broad powers remain unaddressed by Congress.
• Military’s Professionalism vs. Power Plays: The test of military leadership under political orders is ongoing; internal guardrails are weak.
• Republican Resistance: The emerging voice of Republican governors critical of Trump’s military policies is a small but notable check on executive action (40:20-41:05).

Conclusion

The episode ends on a sober note: American institutions’ limits are being tested by the domestication of military power, and meaningful guardrails depend on politics, public reaction, and the courts, not the military itself. The hosts emphasize the need for vigilance as the country faces threats to established traditions of civilian control and legal accountability.