Judging Freedom - COL. Douglas Macgregor : Trump and the Constitution.

Episode Date: September 4, 2025

COL. Douglas Macgregor : Trump and the Constitution.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Don't let an expensive wireless bill disrupt your summer plans. As you map out beach getaways, backyard gatherings, and long weekends, your wireless bill shouldn't be a source of stress. With Mint Mobile, you get the reliable coverage and high-speed performance you're used to at a significantly lower cost. For a limited time, Mint is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for just $15 a month, while others are dealing. with overage fees and surprise charges, you can enjoy peace of mind and more money in your

pocket. Say goodbye to overpriced plans and hello to simple, straightforward wireless service. Every Mint mobile plan includes high-speed data, unlimited talk and text, and access to the nation's largest 5G network. Plus, you can keep your current phone number and contacts. Make the switch and get three months of unlimited service for just $15 a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three-month unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at mintmobile.com slash freedom. That's mintmobile.com slash freedom. Up front payment of $45 required.

That's an equivalent to $15 a month. Limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited. plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, September 4th, 2025. Colonel Douglas McGregor, joins us now. Colonel McGregor, a pleasure, as always. I want to have a general conversation with you about the President C, so not just Donald Trump.

in the Constitution from your own studies, experience, and research. Do presidents generally take the Constitution seriously when it comes to war? That's a very important question, and I guess the evidence is certainly since Eisenhower left office, not very seriously. And I say that simply because Congress has made it very easy for presidents to employ. the military as they saw fit under conditions, which they loosely defined as emergency. This goes all the way back to the Gulf of Tonkin in 1965, that resolution, which made it possible for us to effectively declare war on Vietnam. And ever since then, we've gone through this same routine, despite efforts by people to come up and point out that Congress reserves the right

to declare war to itself. So I don't know. Under the basic rules of war and under several treaties that the U.S. has signed, not the least of which are the four Geneva Conventions, is the Congress able to declare war on anybody at once, or must there be some serious national security threat for the United States to do so. And the flip side of that is, can the president just bomb anybody wants? He dropped the most expensive bombs, non-nuclear bombs we have on Iran. And you have argued, as has almost everybody on this program, that Iran presents no national security threat to the United States. So my question's convoluted. I'll make it easier. Could Congress declare war on Iran without it present?

a national security threat to the United States? Well, I think there's a lot of evidence that it can. Let's go back to the Spanish-American War. We struggled for a long time with what to do about the insurrection in Cuba against the Spaniards. It didn't require our intervention to make it successful or to stop it. But there was an enormous groundswell of support in Washington for war against Spain on the ground. that Spain was a foreign power in the Western Hemisphere and should be expelled. And there were lots of people in the United States that were enamored of that.

So Spain suddenly became a national security issue, even though the Spaniards agreed to practically every stipulated condition that we sent them, it's very similar to what happened to Serbia and Austria-Hungary, where the emperor of Austria sent conditions to the Serbs. The Serbs agreed to virtually all of them, except one which amounted to turning Serbia over to the control of the Austrian Empire. So I think the answer is, yes, Congress can do it at once. There was no danger to us whatsoever from Germany and Austria, Hungary in 1917. But we declared war, nonetheless, on very, very specious evidence and flaky grounds.

obviously Pearl Harbor was a different matter entirely and nobody bothered to ask any hard questions about why the Japanese did what they did. They weren't interested. Everyone was horrified. That made it quite easy. And then subsequently, no one expected what happened in Korea to happen. By the way, MacArthur had urged all of our forces be withdrawn for the peninsula. He said the place is indefensible and he was told to stay there. Very few people are aware of that. So I guess the bottom line is, yeah, it hasn't been difficult for any administration

and any Congress to make up its mind to fight anybody they wanted. So that's the answer to the first question. The second question is very important because it points to something else. Years ago, there was a book written called Victory Through Air Power. And subsequently, someone who had been in the Air Force for 30 years wrote another book called Disaster Through air power. Now, the reason I'm bringing that up is that air power was something that certainly in the aftermath of the Second World War became enormously popular in Washington because air power is something you could use with a low probability of human losses, in other words, losses to your forces, at least that was the assumption at the beginning. And secondly, that you could bomb

at will because most of the targets we were interested in attacking had little or no air defense. In other words, in the minds of politicians, air power was low risk and high payoff because pictures could be supplied showing lots of explosions on the ground, which people equated to effectiveness, whether or not they actually hit anything or whether or not what they hit was useful or, frankly, involved terrible collateral damage. Those things were sort of brushed aside in the media. So I think politically, disaster through air power has really encouraged us. It certainly had a lot to do with our interventions in the Balkans. It's had a lot to do with what happened subsequently in Vietnam that got us into the war there because initially this rolling thunder failed as a bombing operation, and then we put in ground troops without any particular understanding of what the attainable political military

objective was. In fact, there was done. So, you know, you've got those two things. There are two sides of the same coin on the one hand. Can we do whatever we want? I think the evidence is very high or very good that, yes, Congress can do pretty much what it wants. So can the president. And then secondly, air power is always popular because it seems to promise a political effect without much risk. Tell me about boots on the ground, are not boots on the ground, American boots on the ground in the Middle East, almost a trigger waiting to be sprung? I think that's been true for a long time, and it's not just in the Middle East. We've kept forces on the ground in Korea for 70 years in the belief that their presence there would deter an attack from the North. has that worked? Well, one can make an argument on both sides.

Yes and no, that there were reasons that North Korea hasn't attacked that had nothing to do with us at all and everything to do with China and Russia because there was no willingness on their part to go to war against us. The bottom line is that, you know, in 1912, as I recollect, the chief of staff of the French army, asked the British chief of the Imperial General Staff, or actually is the other way around. The British chief of staff asked the French chief of staff, how many soldiers do you want in the event that a war breaks out with Germany? How many do you want us to send? He said, send us one and we'll be sure to put him in the front lines and get him killed as quickly as possible

because they understood that that was the hook to drag Britain into the war. So I think that's still true for us. We haven't been challenged. Our bluff hasn't been. hasn't recently been called. That doesn't mean it couldn't easily be called in the Middle East. And, you know, a certain senator, I will not name, called me and expressed a view when we had a couple of National Guardsmen killed by an unmanned aerial vehicle, in other words, a drone in Jordan a couple of years ago, three years ago, I guess, asked me what we should do.

And I said, well, we obviously didn't take proper precautions to avoid losing these people. They were vulnerable. Somebody missed the target. He said, well, don't you think we should go to war with Iran? I said, well, this strictly speaking was not launched by anyone in Iran. It came out of Iraq. Yes, yes, but that militia is connected to Iran. I think we should go to war with Iran. Well, fortunately, that didn't happen. But I think that mentality is more widespread in Washington than we think because people have lost their fear of war. They don't understand the consequences, and now you're no longer dealing with weak opponents. These are large nation states with powerful capabilities and advanced technologies, whether it's Iran or Turkey or Russia or

China. So talking in sort of cavalier terms about going to war, it's very dangerous, but a lot of that goes on all the time in D.C. How close to the end is the Ukraine war, and do you think the elites in Ukraine, military, diplomatic, political oligarchs, whatever, recognize that the end is coming. It's not the end that they hoped for. Well, again, you're asking several questions at once. First of all, do people in Europe recognize that Ukraine has lost the war? Yes. I think in particular, the globalist elites that rule in places like Paris, London, and

Berlin know the truth. I mean, certainly Georgia Maloney is one of the most level-headed people out there. She knows damn well this war is lost. I think that certainly the new president of Poland is aware that the war is lost. He's already said whatever happens, we're not sending any more Polish soldiers to Ukraine to fight. So I think there's an awareness of that. But when you talk to these globalists, they see their political future, their position of power and authority as inextricably intertwined with what happens in Ukraine,

because they have been pushing this manufactured lie or fiction that Russia wants to conquer Europe for several years. It's pretty clear now that Russia can win this war, annihilate all opposition, and it really doesn't have to advance very far. And that's what's happened. They've won the war because Ukrainians have impaled themselves in most cases on Russian defenses, and then subsequently, they found Russian advances irresistible.

So I think that's part of the reason why these European elites keep pushing for action against Russia and Ukraine is they don't know what else to do, because to tell the truth, to back down, to back off and say, look, this was a mistake, is an impossibility. How do you justify your position in power? This is particularly true for Mertz, McCrone, and Stormer. But they're all scheduled for extinction right now inside their own countries. Their own electorates want to get rid of them. When you say extinction, you mean electoral extinction. Probably, but not exclusively.

There's a lot of anger and rage right now in Great Britain and France. We haven't seen it in Germany, but six alternative for Germany political figures. have died suddenly over the last few days and there is the assertion that these were not deaths from natural causes it certainly seems statistically unlikely that all of these political figures and the alternative for germany would suddenly die as they have and remember we already had attacks and attempted murder against members of the alternative for germany and that that particular party has risen dramatically in popularity. And frankly, it's going to become increasingly difficult to form a government in Berlin without including the alternative for Germany. And that would be

a tremendous defeat for the globalists. These are the people that want global governance. They want uniformity across nations. They want to destroy the borders and the national identities of the people in Europe. They want to dictate to Europe via Brussels, how they will live, what their values will be, what they will think. That's becoming extremely difficult and unpopular in Europe. So I think we're at a tipping point, and no one really knows what's going to cause the tip into revolution. But I think we're very close.

Certainly in Britain and France, I think we'll get there in Germany too. Colonel, in the past two or three days, I'm not sure exactly when it happened. The President of the United States ordered the murder of 11 people in a speedboat, 1,300 miles from the United States in international waters, but close to the country of Venezuela. He has since said, and his Secretary of State has said this was done to teach drug dealers a lesson. These people were narco-terrorists and drug dealers, and we'll do it again.

Can presidents kill whomever they want? well the quote one president i think it was richard nixon who said if the president does it it's not illegal obviously he was wrong uh i think in this particular case there are several things happening number one i for one welcome the restoration of a focus on national defense in the western atmosphere i think our armed forces should be preeminently about defense i don't like the idea of changing the department of defense to the department of war that's in this day in age that makes no sense of all. I'm glad that the forces from a broader coming home to do something useful in terms of defending our country, but putting a flotilla together with ostensible purpose of

invading or attacking another country in the Western Hemisphere that, frankly, is not at war with us and certainly poses no military threat, is something I don't think makes a lot of sense. And then equating this was some sort of national defense destroying a group of people sitting in a boat that arguably probably had drugs aboard as justifiable slaughter, I think, is a stretch. I think we're looking at something that's really an extrajudicial killing of human beings, something that is not consistent with either international or American law. I also think it diverts the focus from what's happening here. I mean, if you want to go after the drug problem, you've got to go after it here inside the United States, as well as on its borders.

But, you know, Maduro, for instance, we know he has very little authority over the Venezuelan military. The generals are fairly autonomous. That's not a good thing, but it's true. To what extent they are involved in drug trafficking is another question. But it's not a major source for drugs in the region. I share the president's anger towards Venezuela for empty. its prisons, much as Castro did, and sending terrible people into our country. But after all, we left our borders open and invited it. Let's go after them inside the United States. Let's take

whatever action is necessary to protect our population and country, but let's avoid an unnecessary war against Venezuela. You know, the president of Mexico has no authority to speak of over the Mexican military. Mexican army responds to the drug cartels. But invading Mexico is not going to help that situation at all. Again, it goes back to what are we doing in our country as well as on our borders. So I'm disappointed. I understand what the thinking is, but I can't make it legal, Judge. No one can make it legal. It's a pre-indictment, pre-conviction, extrajudicial execution, the recently retired head of drug interdiction for the DEA, said that the gang that Trump identified does not deal in fentanyl.

And they never put 11 people in a boat. They maybe put two. There's no way the boat could have reached the United States of America. It just didn't have enough fuel to travel 1,300 miles, that it was probably either human smuggling, voluntary or involuntary, and now those people were executed. To which I would add, even if everything Trump said was true, even if they were, quote, narco-terrorists, and even if the boat was loaded with fentanyl,

that crime does not prescribe the death penalty. What should DOD personnel do if ordered to murder civilians? Well, first, let's also keep in mind who can actually stand up and say, thank you very much, but I regard this as an illegal order. Who can do that? Who can make a difference? judge those are commissioned officers number one number two ideally the flag officer in the chain of command who commands the forces should should turn to his superiors and say as far as i can tell

this doesn't pass the smell test and uh under under these circumstances i'm uncomfortable executing this order see what the people in the chain of command say if they say either execute this order or you're relieved, then that officer has to ask whether or not this is something over which he's prepared to be relieved. Now, we hope at some point somebody steps up and says no. We know, for instance, during World War II, between 1941 and 1945, on the Eastern Front, fighting the Soviets, 55 German generals were executed for failing to obey orders issued by Hitler himself so people were executed for their unwillingness to execute what they thought were immoral illegal orders we're not that we're not that brutal we don't usually execute senior officers

so the worst it can happen is that yes you are removed and then you could be retired in grade or you know depending upon how much time you have in grade at another grade lower but i haven't seen anybody do it i haven't seen anybody do it in vietnam and i think most of them would probably not do it over this they would say this is this does not rise to the level that i'm willing to put my life and career on the line but let's not waste time talking about junior officers and and sailors airmen marines they have no flexibility or latitude at all so they should be claimed what do you think the geopolitical response is when President G or President Putin see Trump do something like this and then boast about it. What does this say about the rule of law, the rule-based orders, the rules that were

written by the United States of America? Well, they don't regard the rules-based order as anything other than this is the world according to Washington, do what Washington says, or we'll punish you. Right. So I don't think they're going to pay much attention to that argument. I think they're looking at this differently. President Trump has developed a reputation for impulsive behavior. He tends to veer from one event to the next. There's no evidence whatsoever for any sort of rational strategic framework.

Let's step back from what's been going on in the Middle East, what's happened with Iran, what's happening in Gaza, the West Bank, what's been happening in Ukraine and ask why now, all of a sudden, out of the blue, Venezuela becomes at the top of everybody's target list in Washington. What brought this on? Has Venezuela changed dramatically in the last eight or nine years? Has Venezuela always been on the target list? Why is it being moved up so high so quickly?

And is this frustration with his inability to be able to? make things happen here at home in other words we've never seen we've talked about this before i certainly have never seen a large scale strategy for dealing with illegal aliens inside the united states i mean frankly what he's doing with ice which is commendable is equivalent to bailing out the titanic as it sinks it's just not enough the only way you're going to make a dent in 50 million people inside the united states or 30 million whatever it turns you're out to be who are illegal is by bringing in the armed forces mobilizing the assets the reserves and everything else to pick these people up identify them and move them out of the country now you

can do that under presidential orders you can appoint panels of judges to deal with questions that come up but i've never seen anything like that judge see nothing at all all of a sudden out of the blue we're blowing up a boat that has drugs in it supposedly and kill a few people. Why? Why now? Ukraine continues. It hasn't stopped.

What's happening in the Middle East has not stopped. We're getting ready for another round there. Virtually everybody that's looking at the situation knows that. Why would we then suddenly turn our attention to this vote that ostensibly is from Venezuela, I guess? Right, right. by Colonel, what are you and I doing on October 4th? Well, before we go there, let's just finish this up with one thing. President Trump has always been about optics.

You know that. He's very sensitive to optics. He becomes frustrated easily when he discovers that everyone in government is not necessarily responsive to him. It's his own fault because you have to look at the people he appoints and his failure to follow up. You know, just writing an executive order and signing it. doesn't change anything. You have to follow up what you've said. You've got to find out who's responsible. We don't see that very much from him. And so right now in the international environment, President Trump is viewed by Putin and Xi and many others as patient zero.

In other words, this uncontrollable, dangerous figure. That's Modi. That's why Modi has essentially, Thank you very much. You know, we'll go ahead and cancel our $35 billion order for planes from Boeing. We're going to the BRICS meeting. We're going to the Shanghai Cooperation Council meeting. We're going to Moscow. We're going to Beijing. Simply said, look, I don't want to live in this impulsive environment you've created

where from one day to the next, the president decides who's his friend, who isn't, and who's to be punished. They want to live in a rational, predictable unit. It's important for economic prosperity and global peace. So I think that's a huge problem now. And what's just happened in the Caribbean, the temptation is to cheer it. Oh, we got some drug peddlers.

But there are larger implications for this that we haven't even examined. What happens if you embroil yourself in a conflict with Venezuela in Colombia? What happens in Brazil? What happens in neighboring states? What happens as far away as West Africa? All of these things are linked. So I would ask Americans to look at this and back away from simply cheering what they think is an act of justice and see it as something that hasn't been carefully thought out, isn't rooted in the rule of law and could have dangerous implications for us in the future. We have a defense secretary who is a cheerleader for all this.

knowing him as I do, I can't imagine, he said to the president, as you just did, Colonel, so articulately, Mr. President, would you consider the likely and probable consequences of this behavior, both domestically and in the international sphere? Now, that's not Heggseth. Hegsteth would say you want me to jump, tell me, where, when, and how high. That's why he has the job. Yes. Yes.

Okay. October 4th, Colonel. Listen, October 4th is important. And a lot of people have called and said, look, what's the bottom line here? The bottom line here is that this national conversation that we hope is going to turn into a travel plan to go across the nation in various cities, not just to take on the hard questions, everything from financial stability. fiat currency in law enforcement and so forth

but also to start looking at building an alternative to the uniparty. In other words, we want to build a foundation for a new movement, a third movement, a third party potentially, a party that is not part of the uniparty. Somebody said, well, listen,

isn't somebody else trying to do that? I said, well, you can't do this sort of thing. You can't build a genuine movement addressing real problems without involving the American people. It has to be built from the bottom up. And that's what we want to do. We want to start at the bottom and work our way up across the country. We're going to find out what people think so that after you and I and Natalie Brunel and Olga

Ravazzi is going to frame these questions, after we answer these things, we're going to turn to the audience, say, what do you think? What's your opinion? You heard what he had to say about the law. What do you want to do? If you want new legislation, you want a new solution, tell us, and we'll talk about it. I think this is the way that we can build a better future in this country. And I don't see anybody doing it.

This is not a session where we have 17 speakers, one after the other, and everybody cheers. We want people who are thoughtful to show up, answer the questions along with us. That's the way we'll learn where this country is really headed. if you scan the QR code you can reserve your you can reserve your place at the event space is limited tickets are selling scan the QR code and you'll see a variety of ways depending upon who you are whether you're a student or veteran etc to participate in this event colonel and i will be there with those two very bright ladies and you can ask us anything well almost anything.

Colonel, thank you very much. I know you've had a long day, as have I, but I deeply appreciate your time. And we'll look forward to seeing you next week, my dear friend. Super. Thank you, Judge. Thank you. Coming up tomorrow, Friday, the end of the day, at the end of the day, for the end of the week, the Intelligence Community Roundtable, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, 4 o'clock right here.

Judge the Politano for judging freedom. Thank you. Thank you.