Trump’s National Security Officials Have a Duty to Report the Dangers of Another Term

Former top national security officials in the Trump administration need to put out an urgent warning that a second term of Donald J. Trump as president poses an existential threat to American interests.

This isn't an exaggeration based on what some already have said publicly, others privately, even before the Mar-a-Lago classified documents criminal charges against him.

This goes well beyond any particular policies and reflects his extraordinary failings.

The most effective way to convey this danger would be from the small group that served Trump at the highest national security level, who were in the room with him: former Defense secretaries Jim Mattis and Mark Esper; former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; Trump national security advisers H.R. McMaster and John Bolton; White House chief of staff John Kelly — and, upon retirement, Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

There is little doubt these men see dangerous consequences for a Trump return to the Oval Office. Bolton has charged that Trump is “a danger for the Republic.” Mattis reportedly told friends that the former president was “of limited cognitive ability and of generally dubious character.” Tillerson said Trump’s ability to understand global events was “really limited.” Kelly reportedly told friends that Trump “is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life … The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding.” Esper called him “unfit for office.”

It's time for them — together and in one venue — to alert Americans of the danger.

Would a dire warning from those who best understand Trump’s national security shortcomings have any effect?

I don't know, but it would be more powerful than the usual suspects coming out against him: Republicans, whom Trump just dismisses as RINOs (Republicans in name only), and leading lawyers, whom he rejects as lefties.

The national security bloc would be harder for Trump to dismiss — though he'd do it — but more importantly, might be more convincing to some of his potential supporters.

It's certain these former Trump officials were as appalled as was Bill Cohen, who served ten years as a Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee and later four years as Defense secretary under Bill Clinton. Trump's behavior, Cohen charges, was “reckless, dangerous and a fundamental threat to our national security.”

Among the sensitive documents that Trump reportedly kept in unsecure Mar-a-Lago ballrooms, bathrooms and storage spaces were contingency plans for an attack against Iran, details of America’s nuclear programs, vulnerabilities of allies if attacked. Trump allegedly displayed some of these documents to people who lacked security clearance, and he allegedly lied and schemed to avoid giving them back — as required by law and a subpoena.

Cohen noted: “President Trump is a target for foreign intelligence services and easy access to a target is an enormous opportunity” for American adversaries. “This is chilling for American allies,” who would worry about the safety of sharing information with the U.S., he said.

“I speak with our allies,” said the former Defense chief who now runs a global business consulting firm, “and they absolutely fear having Trump back in office.”

The argument of some apologists that there's no proof Trump had any intent to harm is irrelevant. Photos in the indictment show that he clearly took no care whatsoever in protecting the nation’s secrets, and the real issue — at least in terms of the indictment — is him allegedly lying about the documents he was trying to avoid returning.

Moreover, everything Trump does appears to be transactional, and there's little reason to believe he wanted these hundreds of highly sensitive and valuable documents to enhance the Mar-a-Lago library.

“He could have used this as leverage with another leader,” Cohen said, “for example someone in the Middle East.”

Trump has a history of cavalier disregard. As president he revealed classified information — which he had a legal right to do — that created intelligence risks. After he was defeated for reelection, the Washington Post reported that top intelligence officials feared he was “a classic counterintelligence risk.” The Biden administration denied intelligence briefings to Trump after he left office.

It is patriotic to warn voters of a peril.

For some in my proposed group of former Trump national security officials, there might be reservations. Is it appropriate for retired military officers to speak out about political matters? Some may not be crazy about the Biden administration and a second term for it. And they might become untouchables in any future Republican administration.

These excuses don't cut it.

Some of the most honored military leaders of the past — former Marine Corps commandant David Shoup and Generals Matthew Ridgway and James Gavin — forcefully spoke out against the Vietnam War. 

This isn't about specific policy differences — even those as critical as the future of NATO or dealing with China. It’s about the core safety of the nation and should transcend personal considerations.

If these former top national security officials believe Trump is unfit for office, a clear and present danger, then they owe it to the country to speak out, ideally as group. 

Time is running out.

Al Hunt is the former Washington executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for The Wall Street Journal. He co-hosts the "Politics War Room" with James Carville. Follow him on Twitter @AlHuntDC