The Democrats’ Bold Military Challenge: A New Tactic or Old Playbook?
In recent weeks, Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, and several other Democrats sparked considerable debate with a provocative video suggesting that U.S. military personnel should defy what they deem ‘illegal’ orders from President Trump. This unprecedented move has kept tongues wagging, not least because it evokes strategies typically associated with foreign regime change.
The underlying aim appears to be a calculated attempt to sow discord between the military and the President, who serves as the Commander in Chief. Interestingly, Slotkinâs background as a former CIA operative raises eyebrows regarding the nature of this approach, reminiscent of tactics used during color revolutions.
Unpacking the Origins of This Controversy
Questions abound regarding the origins of this controversial video. Where did this idea spring from? It seems implausible that Democrats simply conjured this narrative out of thin air.
One plausible explanation emerges from an article penned by Tom Nichols, a self-identified Never-Trump Republican, in The Atlantic about a month prior to the videoâs release. In this piece, Nichols articulated a warning that reads like a blueprint for the Democrats’ strategy. He argues:
The Civil-Military Crisis Is Here
For authoritarians to seize control of a democratic nation, they must dominate three key power sources: the intelligence agencies, the judicial system, and the military. President Donald Trump, along with his inner circle, has made significant strides in commandeering these institutions, distancing them from the Constitution and the rule of law.
While the intelligence community appears effectively subdued, the military remains the last bastion of constitutional loyalty. However, with Trumpâs ongoing purges and threats against military leadership, one must question: how long will this remain the case?
At first glance, Nichols’ assertion that the military is beyond Trump’s reach seems fundamentally flawed. After all, as President, he is indeed the Commander in Chief. The pertinent excerpt continues:
Trump and his loyalists at the Defense Department are now on a mission to transform the military into a partisan extension of his will. While Trump previously skirted the line of military neutrality, he was restrained by seasoned generals. Today, however, he has assembled a Cabinet of sycophants who support his more extreme impulses. With declarations of war against cities and labeling political opponents as ‘the enemy from within,’ Trump appears poised to leverage military authority against American citizens. This sets the stage for an unprecedented crisis in civil-military relations.
These striking similarities suggest that the Democratic strategy may have drawn inspiration from Nichols’ article, aiming to instigate dissent within the military ranks against Trump.
Coincidence or Conspiracy?
Of course, one could dismiss this as mere coincidence. But is that a plausible explanation? Furthermore, in a subsequent piece for The Atlantic, Nichols even suggested that Mark Kelly should take on the role of Secretary of Defense. Coincidence again?
The author of the below “Atlantic” screed is Tom Nichols. From 1997 to 2022, Nichols was permanent faculty at the U.S. Naval War College. He has never served in the military, but does have lots of degrees from some ostensibly impressive universities. In case you were wondering⊠pic.twitter.com/mvcigrWdAC
â Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) December 3, 2025
In light of these events, it is imperative for Republican leaders in Congress to investigate this situation. The convergence of these coincidences raises troubling questions about the motivations behind such political maneuvers.
