The Trump 2.0 presidency is scarcely a week old and a number of political appointees who do not share the president's agenda are now in key positions in his administration. An epic struggle, it seems, is already underway to subvert the Trump administration from within. The problem is not simply a recalcitrant bureaucracy made up of "burrowed-in" Obama-Biden holdovers and leftist civil servants. Obstructionism of President Donald J. Trump's policy of "peace through strength" from such quarters was expected.
In a well-researched article posted by The Free Press, Eli Lake documents the problematic views of several alumni of institutions funded by anti-Trump libertarian Charles Koch, recently installed inside Trump's wire at the Pentagon.
Three of particular concern are Dan Caldwell, Michael DiMino and John Andrew Byers, who will be playing leading roles, respectively, on the Russian-Ukraine war, the Middle East and East Asia. What they have in common is a defeatist predilection rooted in the conviction that the United States must disengage from the world, leave its allies to fend for themselves and accommodate its enemies. They call their policy approach "restraint."
They all have also been associated in various ways with the Quincy Institute, whose seed funding came from not only from the Koch fortune but that of George Soros. Another anti-Trump tell is that Quincy's executive vice president, Trita Parsi, has been described by Iran's state-controlled media as the leader of "the Iranian lobby" in Washington.
Here are a sample of their views:
Caldwell, a former public policy advisor at the leftist Koch-funded Defense Priorities think tank telegraphed before the election a stealthy take-over of the defense staff of a second Trump administration by enthusiasts of "restraint":
"There is a good chance that Trump does pursue policies that are closer to what I believe in, particularly in Europe, hopefully in the Middle East and I think he'll take a more nuanced approach to China than some people are expecting from him, Republicans. I think there's a lot of folks that... have been flying under the radar that we know of that could staff an administration... that is more aligned with, more willing to implement these policies."
DiMino believes that "The people that try to tell you that Iran is somehow going to take over the Middle East, I think it's fearmongering and I think it's pablum and it's not supported by the facts."
Byers holds that "America should abandon belligerent military initiatives targeted at China," avoid a "heightened trade war with China"; and pursue "peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial prosperity" for a "future of mutually assured production rather than mutually assured destruction."
In short, while these newly minted Pentagon officials pride themselves on being advocates of "restraint," in fact, they are champions of "retreat." And history teaches, an America in retreat is one that will soon be at war – perhaps endlessly – with enemies emboldened by what they perceive as weakness and appeasement. That is the antithesis of the promised Trumpian practice of "peace through strength."
It sounds, in fact, a lot like the Obama-Biden policy. That's because it is vintage Charles Koch, an anti-conservative who often teams up with Democrats in favoring deals with Iran, trading with China and otherwise ignoring the determination of these and other enemies to destroy our country. Such sentiments were possibly among the reasons Koch sought to defeat Trump in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries by backing his opponent, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Trump has made no secret of his regret that his first administration was sabotaged by political appointees who worked against him, rather than for him. Indeed, he promised on numerous occasions that the mistake would not be repeated in a second term.
Most recently, he explicitly told those interested in proposing candidates for Trump 2.0 appointments in a January 15 post on Truth Social:
"In order to save time, money, and effort, it would be helpful if you would not send, or recommend to us, people who worked with, or are endorsed by, Americans for No Prosperity (headed by Charles Koch)..."
(In addition to deriding Koch's political operation as "No Prosperity," Trump has also called it "Americans for China Prosperity.")
So how is it that three individuals who worked for Charles Koch are now serving as Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense (DASDs) or their equivalent, in some of the most sensitive positions in the government? The obvious answer is that Dan Caldwell was head of the Defense Department transition team and simply planted his friends in top jobs. Less clear is what quality control, if any, was performed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as he awaited Senate confirmation and the White House Presidential Personnel Office Director Sergio Gor?
While the answers to those questions remain to be determined, there can be little uncertainty about the problems that will result from the installation of individuals with a very different agenda than the president and his secretary of defense. I served for four and a half years as a DASD in the Reagan Pentagon and can attest from firsthand experience to the influence individuals in such positions can have. They have the ability to work day-in and day-out on issues their superiors can address only episodically. That is especially true of the Defense Secretary.
So, while Hegseth is literally correct when he assures skeptics that he will be "in charge," and not others like the Koch cohort, in reality it is they who will be calling the tactical plays every day. If they are not absolutely aligned and trustworthy, when they – not their boss – represent the Defense Department in inter-agency meetings, with representatives of foreign governments, on Capitol Hill and in other public settings, they will likely cause internal flails and external debacles.
There seems to be a serious problem with the vetting system. If recently confirmed members of the president's cabinet are not more vigilant, they may find that their days are numbered or their plans subverted, or both.
A foretaste of what is to come was provided last week by Tucker Carlson in a lengthy interview with Curt Mills, executive director of the misnamed and actually libertarian American Conservative magazine. Carlson and his guest attacked those who have criticized appointments such as Caldwell and DiMino. They even questioned such critics' loyalty to the country and contended that the presence of such "retreaters" in the Pentagon was not only highly desirable, but a necessary exercise in "free speech," conducive to desirable debates.
Such debates were already properly conducted where they need to be – on the election campaign trail – in 2024. A sizeable majority of the American people voted for a change in the nation's foreign and defense policies, not a continuation of the failed ones of the Obama-Biden years. President Donald J. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth – and our country – must not be represented, and undermined, by subordinates who disagree.
Frank J. Gaffney, formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Pentagon. He is currently the President of the Institute for the American Future and host of "Securing America" on the Real America's Voice network.
Brian D McMorris