NYT essay lamenting military won't 'stand up to Trump' sparks backlash: 'What a flaming pile of trash'

WASHINGTON, DC: A New York Times guest essay by former National Security Council members Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson has ignited a heated political storm.

Published on Wednesday, August 13, the piece was prompted by President Donald Trump’s recent order to deploy the National Guard to Washington, DC, as part of his crackdown on crime.

Former National Security Council officials urge military resistance to Donald Trump

Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson argued that senior military leaders, once expected to resist what they view as unlawful directives, now appear unwilling to push back. Citing examples from Trump’s first term, the authors suggested that traditionalist officers once relied on protocol to safeguard constitutional norms but no longer seem inclined to do so.

They noted that this directive, along with other recent orders from Trump, “registered no public objection” from senior military leaders and cautioned that, “in the context of domestic theaters,” the armed forces cannot remain politically neutral.

They wrote, “Unfortunately, though we (and others) had hoped the military would only respond to calls to action in American cities and states kicking and screaming, we no longer expect resistance from that institution. Once, perhaps, traditionalist officers might have leaned on protocol and refused to heed a lawless order, taking inspiration from the generals Mark Milley and James Mattis who resisted the uprooting of established military standards in the first Trump term.”

The essay continued, “But today, general officers no longer seem to see themselves as guardians of the constitutional order. It now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr Trump’s misuse of the nation’s military capabilities.”

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a New York Times spokesperson defended the publication, saying the piece was written by “two seasoned national security experts” and was “thoroughly fact-checked prior to publication.”

New York Times op-ed on military’s role under Donald Trump sparks backlash

The headline, “We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong,” drew sharp criticism online.

GOP commentator Steve Guest wrote, “The New York Times is pro-military coup against President Trump. What a flaming pile of trash in The Times, written by former Obama NSC officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson.”

“NYT would absolutely support a military coup if the Democrats were in the white House. Spare me otherwise. They'd then berate you in how good and just it was. Their urban educated readers who went to NYU would disown you as friends and family for disagreeing, acting as the usual useful idiots they are in service of the regime,” global trade analyst Kenneth Rapoza wrote.

Former congressional staffer Javon A Price remarked, “By the way, this is the very definition of a coup — and it’s the exact opposite of the oath every member of the military swears to uphold.”

A user wrote, “New York Times is really saying the quiet part out loud, huh?” while another added, “Sir this article is reflective of a dangerous perspective that is taking hold amongst various quarters: it demands the military resist orders based on policy disagrements. Whether one agrees with the order is immaterial. The only ones we get to disobey are “manifestly illegal” ones. Nothing about the existing orders rises to that level.”

One penned, “Unbelievable. So if people don't like who wins the election that should be reason enough to think the military should stand against their Commander-in-Chief? You are the one with the problem.”

“This sentiment proves that President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and others are right to steer the military away from ideological social engineering schemes back to the basics of being a lethal and apolitical force,” another added.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.