Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pushed back several times last year against demands from former President Donald Trump to use military violence to potentially kill and suppress demonstrations in response to the police killing of George Floyd.
The revelations of conversations between Milley, Trump and others regarding the potential military intervention in uprisings is detailed in a new book titled, Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost, written by Wall Street Journal White House reporter Michael Bender. According to the book’s description, Bender relies upon “fresh interviews with Trump, key campaign advisers, and senior administration officials” as well as “an exclusive collection of internal campaign memos, emails, and text messages” to describe the inner workings of the White House between the end of Trump’s first impeachment to his second one.
Within the book, Bender chronicles Trump’s alarming interactions with Milley during the uprisings last summer. The former president reportedly said to his advisers that the military should be utilized to “beat the f–k out” of protesters taking part in the demonstrations.
“That’s how you’re supposed to handle these people. Crack their skulls!” Trump said, according to Bender’s sources.
Trump would also often say “Just shoot them.”
Milley would repeatedly rebuff Trump’s rhetoric demanding a violent response, believing the uprisings to be a political issue rather than one that required military intervention. When confronted by Milley and others, Trump relented, albeit only by a small amount, by saying protesters should be shot “in the leg” or “maybe the foot” instead.
Bender also described in his book a moment when Milley took Trump aside, to discourage the former president from considering use of the Insurrection Act to quell the protests, a possibility Trump had raised publicly in his social media postings. The law allows a president to use military force on U.S. soil against citizens in what are supposed to be extreme and limited circumstances.
According to Bender’s book, Milley, while speaking with Trump, pointed to a portrait of Abraham Lincoln to explain in terms the former president could understand why using the powers of the Insurrection Act would be wrong.
“That guy had an insurrection. What we have, Mr. President, is a protest,” Milley told Trump.
Upon reporting of these accounts described in his book, Bender took to Twitter on Friday morning to confirm them, stating that his depictions of Milley’s and Trump’s were “absolutely true.”
“Multiple senior officials who were in the room recounted these exchanges to me,” Bender wrote. “And there’s more to come.”
Milley made headlines earlier this week for rebuking comments from Republican lawmakers in Congress who questioned whether the military was teaching critical race theory, an academic concept that studies the history of racism and its continued systemic impact in the U.S., which conservatives have been using as a political bogeyman in recent months.
Rather than responding to the question in the framing that Republicans had used, Milley explained that the military needs to be “open-minded and widely read,” and that learning about issues or educating oneself about the concepts held within critical race theory wasn’t the dangerous thing that conservatives were making it out to be.
“I’ve read Mao Zedong. I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist,” Milley said on Wednesday in response to questioning from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida). “So what is wrong with understanding — having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend?”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.