No surprises in that headline because we’ve had trouble leap out at us at the federal level for nearly a year. There are so many examples to choose from, not only in the executive branch, but in Congress and the Supreme Court as well. Following along in the 2025 Project playbook shows us that, no matter how chaotic and illegal things might look, there are a few players -- Steven Miller, Scott Bessent and Russell Vought come to mind – whose ideological discipline makes sure that the administration is sticking to the script.
Ironically, of late that discipline has been fractured by two cabinet members – Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth -- and we are starting to see cracks in the previously loyal group who follow Trump and the administration wherever they are led. The Departments of Justice and Defense are prime examples of how the Project 25 plan has been executed, and what it has meant to the structure of governments in those areas.
In each department, the first goal was to solicit resignations or terminate the most respected career leaders and to replace them with hand picked (usually by Trump) replacements who were chosen for their loyalty or close ties to the administration. Then came the gutting of regulatory or oversight groups within the department.
About that same time, the lists started to come down from the White House of investigations to take up or cases to reopen. Outside contracts in both Justice and Defense were re-examined, and new senior managers were allowed to hire like-minded staff. Though this pattern enacted in the Department of Homeland Security falls into the same state, there is no doubt that the changes at Justice and Defense – historically two of our earliest cabinet level entities in the executive branch – have more impact where the Constitution is concerned.
Yes, the Constitution has begun to take somewhat of a beating in the past couple of months. It turns out that the separation of powers among the three branches and the rule of law are blatantly ignored when an executive order can be signed. It turns out that misinformation and obfuscation works well at both the Justice and Defense Departments because there are no internal controls group to monitor their behavior.
The candidate Trump who demanded that the Epstein files be released has turned into a vindictive tyrant ordering up Justice to investigate others where there is probably no basis; or demanding that prosecutors bring cases previously found to be “no case” in the instance of two Trump enemies who happen to have been public servants: former FBI director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Leticia James.
Though Trump was forced to sign the act Congress created to release the files, the investigations he’s ordered against former President Clinton, Larry Summers and others will probably allow the Justice Department to find itself unable to release all the Epstein files. Though he’s tried to rewrite the rationale on why the files are important, we have seen more bipartisan work in Congress on this issue than any other.
On to the Defense Department and its secretary, Pete Hegseth. The Senate committee that confirmed a FOX News broadcaster as secretary had ample background material in front of them to veto the nomination, but Republicans were still following the Trump Playbook at that time rather than reading files or asking for additional material. If we look now at remarks for publication by Hegseth, whether books he wrote or interviews he gave, we see that he is the ultimate disrespector of the military and its rules.
While our form of government requires civilian oversight of the military, most expert and experienced military leaders have been removed, just as leaders who are women and persons of color, along with the principles of DEI, have been excised from training documents, contracts, and the website. Hegseth also disrespects Congress, treating members as if they were the same as pesky reporters.
In both the case of the unsecure Signalgate group chat talking about imminent war plans and in the more recent controversy over whether international law was broken when orders were given to destroy the first of 21 alleged strikes civilian drug boats thousands of miles from the United States.
Hegseth’s story has been self-edited several times, but this has also been enough to have him called in front of Congressional oversight committees; and to have the Signalgate chat investigated and written up by the Inspector General.
As I was trying to read widely about using the military to conduct airstrikes --or, for that matter, to occupy U.S. cities without being invited to do so -- I came upon a shining example of explaining the concept of loyalty, not to Project 25, or to an unqualified secretary of defense, or in fact to the president of the United States.
It is called “Loyalty to the Constitution” and it hangs on the wall at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. It reinforces the point that six Congressional representatives made when they reminded military leaders that the military code does not require a leader to follow an unlawful order, that in fact it might be illegal to follow such an order.
For reciting words from the military code on videos that spread rapidly even as Trump and Hegseth were dumping credit/blame on the military (the admiral), Trump proposed all six to be traitors; and Hegseth is evidently considering returning Mark Kelly to active duty so he can be court martialed. Hearings will continue. More people will sense that matters are falling apart, that worse trouble is coming.
”The United States boldly broke with the ancient military custom of swearing loyalty to a leader. Article VI required that American officers thereafter swear loyalty to our basic law, the Constitution. While many other nations have suffered military coups, the United States never has. Our American code of military obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law. Many other nations have adopted our principle of loyalty to the basic law. This nation must have military leaders of principle and integrity so strong that their oaths to support and defend the Constitution will unfailingly govern their actions. The purpose of the United States Military Academy is to provide such leaders of purpose.”
Once again, we are left in the unenviable position of looking to Congress or the Supreme Court to support the Constitution and to bring the morally depraved excesses of the administration under control.
Once more, the flagrant abuse of Constitutional guidelines and guardians leaves the best pathway scrupulous attention to elections, particularly to the ‘peoples’ house,’ the House of Representatives. It must not be left in the hands of a party that consents to denials of Constitutional conscience.
Annie Searle
Searle is an Associate Teaching Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington. She is founder and principal of ASA Risk Consultants, a Seattle-based advisory firm. She spent 10 years at Washington Mutual Bank, most of them as a senior executive. Annie is a member of the CISA 10 Regional Infrastructure Security Group. She was an inaugural inductee in 2011 into the Hall of Fame for the International Network of Women in Homeland Security and Emergency Management. She writes a column monthly for ASA News & Notes and is the author of several books or book chapters. She is also a member of the emeritus board of directors for the Seattle Public Library Foundation.