The Daily Beast Podcast - Why Troops Are Blowing Whistle on Trump: Senator

Episode Date: December 8, 2025

Senator Elissa Slotkin and Retired Major General Paul Eaton join the Daily Beast’s Executive Editor Hugh Dougherty to chart the growing alarm inside the national-security world over Trump’s increasingly cult-like demands for loyalty. Slotkin, a former CIA officer and Pentagon veteran, lays out how flattery, grievance, and improvisation have replaced strategy in Trump’s orbit—leaving the military to navigate chaos, not command. Eaton, one of the Army’s most outspoken former generals, explains why Trump’s impulses and misinformation pose what he bluntly calls a threat to U.S. readiness. From battlefield myths to political pressure on the ranks, Hugh presses both guests: What happens if Trump once again tries to run the military like it’s his personal force? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I was at an event and this young man who works here in Washington came up to me, pulled me aside after the event, you know, got out of earshot and said, I just wanted to thank you. I'm part of a National Guard, you know, in the Midwestern state. And I'm an intel officer. And I just went to a training and all of my fellow intel officers are worried that we're going to be asked to do intel collection and exploitation inside the United States, right? The skills we learn to protect against foreign adversaries, which is the job, that we're now maybe going to be asked to do that inside a detention facility

or inside somewhere in the United States with American citizens. Welcome to The Daily Beast podcast. I'm Hugh Docketty. I'm executive editor of The Daily Beast. I'm taking the seat from Joanna Coles. Relax. This is not a coup. She will be back soon and is absolutely reading your comments from everywhere that she is. To those of you wondering, this is my. my Scottish accent. I want to say a big thank you to those of you have commented on it before.

Apologies to those of you who are still struggling with it, especially the YouTube closed captioning software, which has not yet had a Scottish upgrade. I want to give a big shout out to our members who are watching. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's because of your support that we are able to bring you such great guests. And today we've got not one, but two brilliant guests who are we going to talk about the week from hell for Pete Hexeth, what it means for the military. for our national security and for democracy. First, we're going to talk to Senator Alyssa Slotkin. She is the Democratic senator from Michigan. She's a rising star in her party. And most

importantly, it's steeped in the world of national security. She's a former CIA officer, a Pentagon leader. She's served multiple tours in Iraq. She has been outspoken about the risk that Donald Trump and Pete Hegsith are going to give the military illegal orders. And she has some fascinating things to say

about that, including the threats that she has received for speaking out, not just from Trump, but shamefully from people who have actually threatened her family. We're also going to speak about the state of Hexath to a man who knows exactly what it's like to give orders, keep troops safe and most importantly, obey the law. Major General Paul Eaton led operations in Bosnia, Somalia and Iraq before he retired, and he is blowing the whistle on just how bad Hexeth leadership is for the troops. Senator Slotkin, thank you for joining us from the Capitol. There are so many things that we could be talking about,

but I think there's only one topic that has dominated DC for the last few days, and that is Pete Hegzeth. And it's multiple topics included in one. But I wanted to start with this controversy, is probably putting it mildly, over the strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs, which was shown to a number of legislators this week, and many of them came out and recoiled in horror at what they had seen. I'm just wondering if you can start with your perspective on this.

Yeah, well, first of all, I was not one of those lawmakers who saw the video. I think it should be obviously made available to all of us on the Armed Services Committee at a minimum, and at this point probably made public. But I think, look, part of the process, that Secretary Hagseth has been having in this controversy, in the Signalgate controversy, is just an unwillingness to just kind of own up and be transparent. I worked for many secretaries of defense under Democratic administrations, Republican administrations. Stuff happens, right? I mean, stuff you don't want, happens. But the buck stops with the secretary. You own up and you

say, look, this is what's gone on. Here's the accountability. Let me come and talk to Congress about it. talk to the American people about it. And he seems just allergic to doing that. And it ends up making it a bigger controversy for him anyways. On the boat strike, I mean, I think in general, many of us have been concerned about, you know, us being in an armed conflict. America's in an armed conflict with a list of narco-terrorists that we're not allowed to see, right? Even the armed services committee, they won't provide us the list of groups that we're going after. The legal justification for going after these folks is classified, and even the guys conducting the operations don't get access to it. And then the intel packages, you know, the sort of showing your math

part of, you know, going after this boat or this group is not there. And I will tell you, a lot of us are sympathetic to going after these cartels, these, you know, drug runners. I said openly, come to me, and we need to be more aggressive and more creative on how we go after these groups. But I was also involved in the operations against and targeting around al-Qaeda and ISIS. And you show your math. You come up to Congress. You say, this is why we're going after this group. This is what they've done.

This is who we're targeting. And this is the intel that's leading to it. So they haven't done the basics there. So I think all we're asking for is some basic oversight. As you say, you've been involved in these sort of targeting operations before. And some people in the MAGA world have been saying, Well, Obama did it that he killed people from the air. He killed an American citizen, Alawaki.

Is it the same? How do you make a distinction between that sort of version and what people have seen or actually haven't seen happening in the Caribbean? Yeah, well, I think, you know, certainly, and it's lots of administration. I mean, you know, the Obama, Bush, I mean, long list of American presidents. that have authorized targeted operations against terrorists. And but the terrorist groups usually have a very clear agenda, stated agenda, of targeting Americans, the homeland, our assets abroad, and killing us, right?

I mean, Al-Qaeda is, I think, probably the perfect example, but ISIS too, like taking up a whole state blit in Syria and Iraq and wanting to kill Americans and attack the homeland. So what's different about these, the drug traffickers, it's not that what they're doing isn't reprehensible. It's, are they in active armed conflict with the United States? Are they coming to kill Americans? And then to me, what I think is really important is these ships that we're targeting, you know, are these leaders? Are these, do they have intelligence? Is there something interesting there that's actually going to help us unwind these cartels?

or are they guys who were paid to take a boat full of cocaine, you know, from one place to another? So I just think it's a little bit of a different compare and contrast when you're talking about a group that has attacked the United States like Al Qaeda, killed American citizens and continues to want to kill American citizens versus drug cartels that it can be very dangerous because of what they ultimately sell inside the United States, but are not what I would define as someone in active armed conflict with. the United States. So it's a different, a little bit of a different apples to oranges sometimes. Do you feel that Hegesith has his head round that difference? Or do you just not know because he won't even, won't even talk to you? I think that there's a long-held desire to go after these drug cartels and narco groups. They, what they sell, what they bring into the United States and

how they fund their organizations do affect millions of Americans. And I, So I'm sympathetic to wanting to really step that up. And it was clear they came into this administration, like, how are we going to do that? There are about a hundred different ways I can think of to be way more aggressive without just the strikes, right? I mean, like I said, I like the intelligence that comes off of these folks. I like to grab the leaders and understand how they communicate and who runs the show and how do they get their weapons and how do they do the, you know, how do they move drugs. So there's a bunch of different ways to do it. But what's clear is in the past, just kind of identifying these things and not doing anything about it also wasn't working for the United States.

You know, Donald Trump often has the wrong answer to the right question, right? He often picks up on the right kernel of thing that we need to address. But his solutions are just take us just to me to a very different place. So I think we had to do more against these drug cartels. But just show your math if you think we need to be in an armed conflict like this. Donald Trump and his questions and his answers, it appears that he is after you as well, rather directly. With Hegsseth, you and a group of democratic lawmakers spoke in a video telling members of the armed forces they don't have to obey legal orders. When you were talking about that, did you have in mind what was going on in the Caribbean?

Yeah, I mean, we made that video, you know, three weeks ago or whatever it was, certainly not thinking that the president would go high and right, as we say, at the Pentagon on it like that. But because there was so many people coming to us who were on active duty, who were recent veterans, family members of service members, who were coming to us individually and I'm saying two things. One, I'm concerned, you know, I'm going to be sent in uniform to an American city, you know, like L.A., Chicago, Memphis. And I'm going to be asked to do things I either don't think are legal or I'm not trained for and that's what do I do? And then this fall, it really turned and it became a lot of people

who were involved in the operations around the Caribbean asking those same things. Hey, I'm not sure they, I don't know if this is legal. I don't know if I'd be held accountable later after this administration. I can't get a straight answer about whether this is legal or not. What do you think we should do? So we were hearing that. There was a lot of juju in the system on that for for months. So that's why we made the video just restating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And, you know, it just, you never know, and it happens in a week when the Epstein files are approved for release and all these things. And so the president wants to talk about something else. But I think the reaction to it tells you more about them than it does about the six of us who made this pretty simple video.

You know, the best commentary I heard was from someone saying, if you walk into a. crowded bar and someone yells, hey, ugly, and you turn around, you're probably ugly, right? And I think that was, to me, their reaction, number one, of calling for us to be arrested, investigated, and then ultimately hung. You know, when the president of the United States threatens you with death, we shouldn't be surprised when people across the country do that and worse. So the threat picture completely changed for all of us. You know, we all have 24, 7th security and we had bomb threats at my house and my family's been targeted. But then the second shoot-a-drop was weaponizing the federal government against people who you

disagree with, right? So getting the FBI and pushing the FBI to do some sort of inquiry or investigation. Obviously, one of us is now being looked at for a military investigation. So to me, regardless of whether someone agrees with our video or not, I think, do we think it's normal and okay for the president to threaten people with death and weaponize the federal government just when he disagrees with them. And I felt a lot of people, especially back home, say, look, I didn't like that you made that video or I didn't agree with your video, but you shouldn't be targeted for death because of that. Have you even heard from the FBI yet? The FBI reached out, this is all public. The FBI reached out through the Senate and House, you know, sort of legal advisors or legal folks, and, you know, asking seemingly to start an inquiry. And we're waiting. We're kind of in the back and forth. We're waiting to hear what they're going to do. And, you know, I will wait to see what the next step is. But there's certainly took some action and reached out to us here.

officially, yes. And how do you even respond to that? I mean, you know, as you say, presence threatening people with death is an incredibly crazy thing to happen. What goes on inside your head when that happens? I think for me, you know, most of us, certainly the six of us who did that video have served in dangerous places. We've felt under threat before. I think the thing that's different is when it's targeting your family or your staff. Right. I mean, that's a, I signed up for this. And this, you know, but, you know, the second part of it is like, I just, I don't think anyone is proud of our politics right now. And I think the majority of Americans, no matter what side of the aisle they're on, don't think that we should be threatening each other with death and arrest when we disagree with each other. So I'm sort of, you know, I'm all right, but I'm just sad for the country. that this is the point we've come to. And it shouldn't be that if you decide to run for office,

you should just expect this kind of weaponization of the government. That's not something that I think we want, again, no matter whether you're a Democrat or Republican. Just to turn to the other aspect of this week with Hegsseth, it was obviously also we've had the report into Signalgate. And you were talking about, you know, stretching the norms might be putting it charitably about threatening people with death. But in Signalgate, it seems that Pete

Hegeseth used this signal chat. He copied over secrets into it. And then his defense was, well, I get to declassify things. I'm not secret. How concerned are you about one law for him and one law for everybody else? Yeah. I mean, I think, again, there's sort of a, there's the legal set of issues, but also there's just the leadership issues. And, you know, just to be clear, if you, if any, rank and file soldier, put in an unclassified email on a commercial app, the time, location, and type of military operation that was going to go on in the next two to four hours, they'd be fired, there'd be an investigation, there'd be an absolute accounting for that, because they'd put people at risk. And actually, if the secretary had just said that, you know, if he had just said that

months ago in May and just said, you know what, I was moving fast. These were operations that were going on in real time. I was trying to keep people informed. I made a mistake. I own up to it the way I would want any young officer or enlisted to own up to it. I swear to God, we wouldn't be talking about it right now, right? Just like it could have been a one-time on-camera thing and I'm going to, you know, redouble my efforts to only use the correct systems. I certainly would be done with it if he had just done that. There's the legal issue of, you know, I'm the Secretary of Defense. And so just by me writing it into an email, I'm declassifying.

I think that's real questionable. There are proper procedures for declassifying things. And but then secondly, it's just more of a leadership climate thing. Just you're trying to set an example for the million people that you represent in the Defense Department and any of them. I mean, the best commentary, again, I saw on that back when Signalgate happened, was I have a close friend whose spouse was on one of the destroyers that was involved in those operations off Yemen. And she said, if we, we as spouses know that we can't put that kind of information out into the world. It's just like an understood thing. The Facebook group for the

spouses would never deign to put the type location and timing of an attack on the open internet and the Secretary of Defense did it. So just, just own it. And we could have moved on. Is there going to be some sort of accountability for this? Can you see that coming in some shape or form? I think that this report and the fact that we're all talking about it right now openly is probably the only accountability we're going to get. And I'm glad that the IG did the investigation. I think, you know, it's a low bar these days on, you know, IGs were all fired,

Jags were all fired. So I'm glad that it happened, but I don't expect there's going to be much more formal accountability. Now, I know you've tweeted about this early on the week. The hypocrisy involved in this as well that Pete Higgseth before he was in office had certainly been somebody who spoke about obeying the laws of war. And he also, of course, as a Fox commentator, repeatedly went after Hillary Clinton for her server. I just, when you finally get to talk to him, are you going to raise this with him? It seems like almost a hallmark of his behavior now that there's the past hexath and there's the present hexath. Yeah, I think it's not just the secretary.

I think that this is a sort of characteristic of a lot of people in Washington, which is there is no real center of gravity on an issue. You know, if something is unlawful for you because you're my political enemy, then I'm going to beat the drum on that. but if it's not appropriate, but it's my team, I'm going to defend it till the last, right? And I think what's hard, especially in national security, is there are really things where you have to be able to call balls and strikes. It doesn't matter what political party, the president's from, you know, a threat to the United States is a threat to the United States. And military operation, you have to be straight about these things. And I think that's what's difficult is that Pete Hegseth is the Secretary of Defense, right? He's not some commentator on Fox who could just flip or a political, you know, guy who was working, supporting the president on political stuff.

He's the Secretary of Defense. So we expect more from someone who's in charge of the greatest fighting force in the world. And so it just sticks out more. But that's that inability to just call a spade a spade when you see it on tough issues. You know, this is like what I'm trying to say to all these folks is like, I'd be with them on some pretty aggressive things around the narco traffickers in the Caribbean. I'm like, I'm here for some of that. But you can't just get to pick and choose facts and you can't pick and choose right and wrong just based on who said it.

You've got to have a center of gravity as the Secretary of Defense. I noticed, by the way, in the subject of not calling things by their name, you're not calling him Secretary of War, which I should say the Daily Beast does not recognize. either. So, but it seems like renaming things, rebranding things seems to be part of the part of the pattern here. Yeah. And I think, I mean, the Secretary of Defense is the name. You can call yourself something different, but, you know, we went back and looked and the power to rename things, right? Because before it was the Secretary of Defense, before it was the Department of Defense, it was the Department of War, right? Back in World War II era. And Congress changed the name after a big discussion. So Congress hasn't changed the name. It's the Secretary of Defense.

And, you know, people can call themselves what they want. But I'm going to follow the law. Have you had more people coming to you after this video in the wake of what's happened in the Caribbean? Have more people been raising concerns about lawful orders with you? I'll just give you a perfect example. Last night, 7.30 p.m. last night. I was at an event. and this young man who works here in Washington came up to me, pulled me aside after the event,

you know, got out of earshot and said, I just wanted to thank you. I'm part of a National Guard, you know, in the Midwestern state, and I'm an intel officer. And I just went to a training, and all of my fellow intel officers are worried that we're going to be asked to do intel collection and exploitation inside the United States, right? the skills we learn to protect against foreign adversaries, which is the job, that we're now maybe going to be asked to do that inside a detention facility or inside somewhere in, you know, the United States with American citizens. So this is someone, and he said everyone was talking about it.

That was the conversation quietly in the corners of the training. So there's, this is, this is not coming out of nowhere. And certainly since we made the video, people have been finding their way to us just to say, hey, we've been expressing this angst amongst ourselves. Thank you for saying something. And it certainly, I mean, I have to say it, I didn't expect it. But it certainly helped prompt a conversation that I think is an important conversation about the use of force in America. You know, how do we use our military?

And I just feel very strongly that one of the worst things that can happen from any administration, but from this one in particular, is that American citizens doubt their military. They don't trust. You know, if you see someone in uniform in your city and they're asked to do something they're not trained for. And the president has been open. He said, we're going to use our cities as training grounds. He said it in front of 800, you know, general officers that, you know, American citizens want the military to be protecting them from foreign threats. Given our history, we do not want our military, you know, participating in things like arrest and detention and crowd control ins and.

and having potential escalation in American cities. To me, that is a real strategic risk to the role of the military, which I love. How much of this is a hexat? How much of it is just Trump? I think a lot of it is coming from the White House. And I think the president in this administration, different, I think, a little bit from his last administration, he's really just picking people for jobs who are going to do whatever he says, right? I don't think he's looking for that, like, kind of push back and that the things that, like, you know,

most CEOs will say they're looking for, right? I want someone who will push back on me and tell me when I'm going off course. I don't think this administration, he's looking for that. And we've seen in the folks who have come up, you know, I voted for some of Trump's nominees, especially on Unipore military side, because I've known some of these folks and I want someone in there who's going to uphold the values that I believe in and uphold the Constitution. but so many of these nominees that come through every day are just yes men who are literally chosen to do whatever the president's going to say above anything else, including above their oath. In the last Trump administration, 2019, you were one of the Democrats who came out quite early calling for him to be impeached on the Ukraine phone call.

And I'm just wondering, how does this compare this time round? Is that on the table? Is that where your mind goes? Or is this something that it's three years and we have to find ways through it? You know, back then the Democrats had the House of Representatives. You know, I mean, I think there was tools there. And I think, look, he went through two impeachments. And certainly the second one, you know, given that he incited a riot and the, you know,

the armed engagement of in this building where I'm sitting right now. I mean, so there are, there are important strategic things that he has done. I would be happy with just basic oversight from my Republican colleagues in the committees that they chair. I've watched them seed basic, basic oversight responsibilities. I think sometimes about what John McCain would be doing as chairman of the armed Services Committee if he was alive today. And all I want is basic oversight.

I'm not looking for them to get into a fight, just to get into a fight. I'm looking for them to do oversight over something that's fundamental to who we are as American. So I don't think impeachment is really on the table, to be honest. I'd be thrilled with basic oversight. How'd you get your colleagues to go along with that? I mean, they obviously, as you say, they've ceded those opportunities. How did you get that back?

Look, I think some of my colleagues have been very open about fear. They're literally acting out of fear. And now that I've been on the receiving end of it, I understand why that can be an effective tool. We can't let it govern our politics. That's the worst case scenario. But a lot of my colleagues will say openly, including to the press, if we go against Trump, he's going to weaponize the political system and potentially the federal government against us and death threats and my family and the whole thing. Okay, the only thing more powerful, I think, to a lot of elected officials than that sense of fear is the fear of losing their own elections.

And I think what the only chance I see right now of a real wholesale change is if people feel like President Trump is a liability to them as elected officials rather than a bonus. And, you know, I think the elections we had a month ago, the elections, that they had in Tennessee. Obviously, the midterm elections will be a very important indicator. That, to me, I would not be surprised if you'd see more sort of strength from my Republican colleagues correlated to the fact that Trump is maybe more of a boat anchor than a help to their election. His polling is obviously looks in that direction now.

You're from a swing state or what is seen as a swing state. What's your feeling about where that's going to be? goal. You know, I just don't think it's really rocket science. The Democrats at the top of the ticket lost Michigan this last time because the public perceived that Trump was more focused on cost of living than the Democrats. And that's still the galvanizing issue. That is, whether you're in Manhattan or Kansas or Michigan or whatever, that, whether people can afford the American dream or not, is the galvanizing issue of our time. And, um, when President Trump gets into a cabinet meeting and says openly that, quote, affordability is a democratic hoax, people are not stupid.

They were talking about affordability when they had a Democrat in office, right? And I've been open, like Joe Biden tried to tell people for a year, you know, that the economy was better than it actually was. People know their own pocketbooks. They may not know fancy policy positions going on in Washington. They know how much their family saves and spends every month. and they know if they're able to save to get ahead. And so to me, the issue of those midterm elections, polling is fine. You know, that's all we have.

So we cling to it, I guess. What is much more important to me is what is the economic situation going on in my state and what are the policies doing to improve or hurt their situation? And that's going to be it. That's how they're going to vote, just like they did last time. Does this issue about boat strikes and about what hegs are things, is doing, is that cutting through? Do you hear it from voters? You know, some, but any day of the week, people are like, can we just stop the chaos so that someone can lower our costs? Electricity,

healthcare, housing, groceries and food, services, something, right? So as much as I'm a national security person by training, and so I find these issues important, I do think they're important to who we are as Americans, nothing comes close to the level. of urgency on affordability and the American dream. Nothing. Well, that's a fantastic note to finish it on. Central Slotkin. Thank you for joining us. It's been fascinating and educational.

And we would love to have you back. Anytime. Thanks so much. And now a word from our sponsors. And we are back talking about Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, and a Defense Department in Crisis. Now, we've heard from a very powerful civilian about what the military think. I'm delighted to say we are now joined by someone who knows exactly what it takes to be at the top of the military. Major General Paul Eaton is one of our country's most distinguished soldiers.

He is now speaking out in a way his comrades who are still serving cannot. General, thank you for joining us. There's so much that we could talk about, but I wanted to talk first about somebody that you have been very critical of. The Defense Secretary, or the self-styled Secretary of War, Pete Hegesith, he has had an extraordinary week and I know that you're somebody that has raised warnings about him before this week he's been

found to be using he used a signal account to pass on what he said were not secrets but clearly were the secrets of war plans and he was also involved in the aftermath of this strike in a boat from Venezuela and the Caribbean Just tell us, what is your view of Pete Higgs' performance this week? If I were rating Mr. Hegseth as a superior officer, he would be out of a job.

He has consistently demonstrated that he does not have the gravitas, he does not have the experience, he does not have the mindset. He does not have the ethical base to, to perform the duties expected of the Secretary of Defense. And he is demonstrating this on a daily basis. You bring up Signalgate. My father was a fighter pilot, fought in Vietnam. And the level of detail that Mr. Heggsath put out in a public space

would have given gunners in Vietnam plenty of opportunity to prepare the worst they could deliver to men like my dad. And so that is just a fundamental failure to understand the seriousness of the job. The fact that he would declare murder on the high seas and issue instructions that have been taken down. I mean, we're going to see everything in the analysis because we've got the Republicans on board right now to get to the bottom. of the so-called double-tap that he invoked back in September, I gather. Do you think he, Pete Hegseth, is the person that's ultimately responsible here, or do you think this goes up to Trump?

I don't know. What I do know is that Mr. Hegseth has issued instructions that leave no doubt in the mind of the recipients and those who heard them, that it's either an authorization for murder or a war crime. And whether it goes to Mr. Trump, you might make the point that from an emotional perspective and setting the emotional and ethical groundwork, he is the senior man in our government, and he has set the tone for everybody who reports to him. And he has set an unethical tone.

He is set an immoral tone. He has set a lawless tone to those in his employ. And that is more of an emotional nature associated with the behaviors that we see from Mr. Egg-Seth. Clearly, as Commander-in-Chief, we know that Donald Trump has some degree of immunity. But you've warned yourself that... There can be consequences for those who do not have immunity, and one of those people is Hegsseth. I'm just wondering, tell me, take us inside the kind of the military mind here. What does somebody who wears the uniform when they are presented with this sort of order?

What goes through their mind? If it smells bad, don't do it. If it smells bad, go to your lawyer. And to be clear, lawyers give advice. They do not give directive. And lawyers, if they smell something bad, they have recourse to go to the legal chain of command above them. And that brings a greater understanding into the whole mix and, if necessary, advice from high. And what we've got right now is a chain of command that is looking over its shoulder.

and I think the Wall Street Journal published it's a very lonely place to be in an American foxhole right now because you definitely don't have the backing of the civilian leadership. How do you process that? Just again, to take us inside that mindset, had you ever been in a scenario where you felt that you had been presented with an illegal order? Or is this so outside the norm of the military experience

that these are the generals and admirals are dealing with really unprecedented situations? It is unprecedented. Operational experience from my perspective, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq. I was blessed with terrific military leadership and civilian leadership. I was never asked to do anything untoward or even close to the line of, illegality. The men and women in those commands and subordinate to me left and right had the clear backing of the chain of command and understand the higher commanders retain authority and responsibility for everything that happens or fails to happen in the operations in their area of operations.

So I see what's going on right now as unprecedented, and I believe that our uniform military is in a very tough position, and I will be very interested to hear what Admiral Halsey, the former Southcom commander, whose retirement will take effect within days, I'll be very interested to hear him provide advice or observations on what's going on right now and observations around his early retirement and how he interacted with outside agents, either lettered agencies or our special operations command. because the South Kong commander has an area of operations. He commands and is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in that AO area of operations. Outside actors coming in are operating in his AOR area of responsibility,

and they are executing missions in a different command line, all of which makes the four-star Admiral in command of South GOM's life more difficult. And I would love to see some analysis and observations from a great retired Admiral Halsey. One thing that has stood out in this is that this strike, the first strike of the, well, I was going to say the first strike, but the fact the first and sixth. second strikes of this campaign, for want of a better word, we now know we're run by SEAL Team 6 and through Special Operations Command. Did that strike you as kind of off or odd? It seems, to the outside observer, you might say, that seems like not quite what we all understood

SEAL Team 6 was about. Well, to me, the issue is somebody operating in my AOR. Now, if you are the Southcom commander, what are the command links between the Southcom commander and the Socom, the special operations command? How, where are the coordinating points between those two four-star commands? One owns the AOR. One is operating in the AOR separate from the chain of command. of Southcom. This is not a new dilemma. We had this, you may recall, Black Hawk down. Of course.

That incident, the fact that Special Operations Command was operating in an AOR that belonged to conventional army. And what were the coordinating points as far as supporting fires or supporting activities or, if necessary, expiltration facilitation. All of that seemed to indicate that all was not particularly clear to the commanding general of the AOR Mogadishu. And this is not a new problem. And it's not because we're trying to make mistakes. It's just, you can go after the fog of war. It's just complicated, and I don't know what those arrangements were between Southcom and Socom and what's going on killing boats in the Caribbean.

Do you think it's a legitimate use of the United States forces that's the starting point here? No, no, absolutely not. I live in Key West. We have a robust Coast Guard operation going on here. And very recently you saw on the news that one of our cutters stopped a ship or a boat and recovered some $300 million worth of cocaine. And our guys in the Coast Guard are very well trained in boat operations at sea. how to stop, how to present, how to board,

and they know how to operate within U.S. law, which is applicable in international waters. And when the Coast Guard shows up, they show up with a full force of American legal systems. And they do it without any problems. They don't go in killing people. They go in, and if necessary, they arrest people. And in the case of this recent activity, I believe that after questioning the crew in question, they delivered them back to, I believe, Ecuador.

I believe that was their homeland after recovering the contraband. So America knows how to do this. This is the purview of the Coast Guard. If the Coast Guard is overwhelmed by activity level, let's give them some more tax dollars so that they can expand their operations. This is not what I want the American Navy to do. We can do it, but they are not manned, trained, and equipped to do it in concert with U.S. law in international waters. I presume you hear, obviously, from your friends, from people that you served with that are still in uniform. What's the mood inside the military about this?

What we've got going on right now is whack-a-mole going on in the Caribbean, and the people I hear from are looking for a traditional explanation of what is my task and what do you expect me to deliver on that task? And that's not happening. What we are getting is looking for high-speed boats and killing high-speed boats. without an explanation of are they just fishermen from Venezuela who have been threatened, either harm to family or harm to themselves? Have they been forcibly employed to move cargo, which, again, the Southcom chain of command has failed to make the case to the American public that what we are doing in Venezuela and north of Venezuela in the international waters

is a valid task for U.S. Armed Forces. What advice do you give to people in that situation? If Pete Heggseth and his civilian command can't define a mission, does it then fall to the military to work out? Or do they have any ability to do that themselves? So when you are given instructions or intent from a higher commander, before you leave the room, you've got to have crystal clarity in what it is that you were told to do. If you leave the room, you have failed in your job,

failed in your duty to your peers and subordinates, and what the U.S. military has to do, and I again invoke the name of Admiral Halsey, who appeared to be uncomfortable to the point where he dropped his retirement papers. Retirement or resignation are options when you were presented with inappropriate or illegal orders. Do you feel that's going to happen more? It's almost the perfect moral dilemma for somebody who's held a rank like yours that they have risen to that level because they are crystal clear in their own command structure and are then presented with an impossible situation. I empathize with the men and women in leadership positions in our armed forces.

because I've never seen a more fraught nature of civilian military relations in my life. I was 18 years old in 1968 when the Tet Offensive occurred, and when Walter Cronkite effectively ended the war, it took years to truly end it, But we asked the men and women in our armed forces during the Vietnam War to do the impossible. The mission was vague. The rules of engagement kept changing, and we were operating with a forced service, a conscription environment. And young men and women were forced into a situation. that was extremely difficult.

We are embarking upon, we have embarked upon a very difficult situation for our armed forces, and only our Congress, our first branch, only our Congress can help the men and women of the armed forces.

And every American citizen can join in on that help by contacting their representative and their two senators and ask the question, what the hell is going on in the Pentagon civilian leadership? That's the question. And now a word from our sponsors. And we are back talking about national security in a time of deep, deep trouble. We saw some oversight in the last few days from the Inspector General on the Signalgate report and it painted a picture which I think anybody would agree was pretty damning that the Secretary of Defense or self-styled Secretary of War, the Secretary of Defense

was basically cutting and pasting secrets and putting them in an unsecured format and there seemed to be there was a defense on offer of well I just get to declassify things in that sort of environment, how effective even is Congress to deal with that contempt, essentially, for the checks and balances that are already in place? And I should say, I know that you've tweeted about the ultimate point that there is the possibility of action after HECSeth has left office on accountability. Indeed. And the real power that Congress holds is the power of the purse. and it requires a concerted effort to require the military leadership, civilian and uniform to report for interrogation in Congress.

Interrogation is the harsh word, but that's what it is. And then it is a real threat to withhold monies for operation, and it is a, they have the power of the purse. That denial is a very difficult step for anybody to make with the armed forces deployed at risk. But our system is not working right now. And we don't have Richard Nixon to ultimately say, well, I will retire. I will resign from the presidency. We're not getting that behavior from the world of Maga,

and I don't expect it to show up. But the nature of a requirement to come in and brief Congress, and two of the most unhappy men I've seen lately were, Admiral Bradley and General Kane walking into a congressional office to undergo what they knew was going to be a series of most unpleasant questions. But to your question, it's not going to be an immediate fix to what is developing into a very big problem for our own forces. And that problem might develop further if there's an escalation. We keep hearing aggressive language from the president about Venezuela, about land action there. You obviously were involved in something not dissimilar in terms of going into Somalia and you train troops in Iraq.

What advice would you offer on going into Venezuela? Careful as you go. wars are easy to start. They take on a nature of their own very quickly. The men and women who are going to be at risk and all this deserve better than what they're getting right now. How dangerous do you feel it is for the military at the moment? From a civil military danger, extraordinary. When you start looking left and right and you don't trust the fellow left or right because of informal links with, the civilian leadership. Are you going to be cast as a failure to honor the Maga chain of command? Are you going to be cast as

an apostate in a world that is essentially a cult that Mr. Trump has established? That's a great danger. The danger at the tactical level is no fellow ever went into a deliberate attack with 100% intelligence pictures nature of the objective. So it is what don't we know about what it is we've been asked to do as far as capacity to execute the mission and get back home safe. We've also obviously had the president talking in that speech to the entire general and general,

I was going to say the general staff. In fact, every general and admiral, he talked about using American cities as training grounds. That's obviously something that people have viscerally reacted to. But in that context of the MAGA chain of command, what can you do if you are ordered into that sort of situation? I would like to shout out to every man and woman in that auditorium, their behavior, their silent hands on their knees, stoicism in the face of two unruly, disrespectful civilian leaders. Hats off to them.

As for what they can do, they have an oath to the Constitution. and they have an obligation to every man and woman in their command, to do everything that they can to ensure that their men and women in their command are taken care of, that they are safe and that they're sound, and that they will not get stupid orders. And if it means to do what the, distinguished Admiral Halsey did where he said, I am not willing to do your bidding. I am retiring. This magnificent man owes America a little bit more information about what happened and what drove him

to what he did. You're obviously confident that he is going to provide that information. I believe that a man with his experience, with the full faith that America placed in him by promoting him to Forstar Admiral, that he will do the right thing. General, we'd all hope that people would do the right thing, as you have done. We want to thank you for joining us. Thank you for your service. Thank you for offering such an extraordinary insight into how the military deals with this. incredibly unprecedented situation. And I just wanted to finish by asking,

can you perhaps offer us some hope that we are not going to see things get worse? I have great faith in the men and women in the United States military. I have watched, distinguished civilian leadership. I expect that we will be back there soon enough. And to borrow from a movie, the time for flattering yourself, Emperor,

will soon come to an end. Well, I hope you can come back to discuss it with us when it does. General, thank you so much for joining us, and we look forward to hearing from you again in the future. I'm flattered to be included. Be well, thank you, sir. Well, that has been quite a conversation with both Centress Lottkin and General Eaton. Can Leakey Pete survive? Can the military survive, the Maga Chain of Command? We are going to be covering this relentlessly on The Daily Beast. Go and subscribe at www.

Thedailybeast.com to keep up with what's happening. And of course to keep up what's happening with the commander-in-chief's health, something that there's a lot of questions over that we are going to be talking about later. And as Joanna rightly always says in the words of the First Lady, please be Beast. I want to say thank you to our YouTube members. for their support and especially our Be Beast tier members. They are Sandra Clark, Methinks, Travels with Carol,

Andrew Beaver, Caponator, Harry Clark, Don McCarthy, Daniel Dogglover, M. Griner, Fulvia Orlando, Herbie, Andrew Miller, Las Condi, Bonzo, Val Love Francisco, Andrea Houdel, Bocock, D.C.,

Sharn Chipley, Connie Rutherford, Karen White, and Heidi Riley. Thank you to our team, Devin Rodgerino, Anna Von Osse and Jesse Milwood, thank you for joining us. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts.

If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.