Trump's Arlington Debacle Shows Us How He Will Govern
Five lessons about how a hyper-politicized Trump administration would abuse
power
Don Moynihan
Aug 30, 2024

Former President Trump and his entourage went to Arlington National
Cemetery. The purpose of the visit was to score political points,
portraying the Biden administration as a weak steward of the military. The
actual result was somewhat different; a multi-day media embarrassment
amidst reports that Trump�s team ignored clear rules about using Arlington
for campaign purposes, and shoved aside an official who tried to enforce
those rules.

At one level, Arlington is just one more stumble in a campaign that seems
to have lost its way. But its more important than that. I see the incident
through the lens of governance. From that perspective, Arlington is a small
moment that offers a big insight into what a second Trump administration
might look like. And its worth paying attention to it precisely because I
don�t think we really has a full sense of how a hyper-politicized
administration would operate. Frankly, I study this stuff and even I can�t
predict all of the ways that a partisan model of presidential
administration would seep into every crevice of government. But specific
examples like this one force us to imagine what another, more debased,
version of American government would look like.

The incident offers five takeaways.
1. Public Service as a Joke; Public Servants as Props

Trump has a long record of demeaning public servants. Some of his most
dismissive criticism is reserved for those who served in the military. His
visit to Arlington came after he suggested that government medals awarded
to military officials who were injured or killed in the line of duty had
less value than civilian awards. Trump has also called fallen American
soldiers �suckers� saying �Why should I go to that cemetery? It�s filled
with losers.� Trump told his Chief of Staff, John Kelly, a veteran who lost
a son in Afghanistan: �Look, I don�t want any wounded guys in the
parade�.It doesn�t look good for me.� When Trump and Kelly visited his
son�s gravesite, Trump said: "I don't get it. What was in it for them?"

Trump sees the political value of military uniforms, without being able to
conceive of the underlying public values they represent. The idea of a
calling to public service is foreign to him, something he cannot fathom. A
military parade is a great way to make his administration looks tough,
unless there are veterans with unsightly injuries. Trump wants to be
surrounded with military generals like Kelly and James Mattis, but as soon
as they question his wisdom they are disparaged as disloyal and
incompetent.

For Trump, the military are useful only as props. Their underlying values
are for �suckers.�

The purpose of Trump�s visit was to use military deaths to embarrass the
Biden-Harris administration. He chose the anniversary of the Kabul bomb
attack to visit the graves of service members who died amidst the
withdrawal from Afghanistan under Biden. This is part of an ongoing
political strategy. For example, the families of some of those lost at
Kabul were brought onstage at the Republican National Convention. Trump
quickly used footage his media team collected at Arlington in a campaign
video that centered on the bombing. At a campaign rally after his Arlington
visit, Trump told his audience that �Joe Biden killed their children by
incompetence - should have never happened. Kamala killed their children.
Just as though they had a gun in their hand.�

And what about the soldiers who died under Trump�s administration? Since
they failed to serve his campaign needs, they did not merit a stop on his
visit.
2. Responsiveness to the President = Lawbreaking

Imagine if your family�s gravestone was being used as a prop in a political
campaign you oppose. Seems inappropriate, right? Federal rules seek to
prevent this from happening. An Army statement said that Trump�s retinue
�were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations and DoD policies, which
clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds.� And the rules
are pretty clear. Other media followed a clear directive they could not
visit the Section 60 area where recent casualties are buried. However, the
employee who reminded the Trump campaign team was �abruptly pushed aside�
and told that those rules did not apply to them according to the Army
statement.

I spend most of my career focusing on administrative burdens created by
unnecessary rules. But the old adage of Herbert Kaufman � �one man�s red
tape is another�s treasured procedural safeguard� � holds here. The rules
are there for a reason. Another Gold Star family were upset that the
headstone of their loved one was used by Trump, saying in a statement: �We
hope that those visiting this sacred site understand that these were real
people who sacrificed for our freedom and that they are honored and
respected accordingly.�

Trump�s spokespersons defended his actions by noting the some families
welcomed the former President taking graveside pictures with them. But
individual families do not set the rules for Arlington. Presumably the
families that Trump accompanied with would not have been pleased if Joe
Biden or Kamala Harris had turned up, giving a broad thumbs-up and smile
over their relative�s gravesite, and then using those images to raise money
or score political points.

Trump could simply have visited the graves in a personal capacity, with the
family, to honor their losses. He had already gotten plenty of images of
him laying a wreath at Arlington earlier in the visit. But the point of the
visit was to create political imagery for a campaign by using the
gravesites of particular soldiers in a way that was clearly forbidden.

In short, Trump wanted to break the law. He was told no. The person who
reminded his team of the law was shoved aside, and the law ignored.

Political scientists often talk about �responsiveness� as a legitimate
demand for Presidents to make upon the career civil service. And it is. But
this assumes that we are talking about responsiveness to legal and ethical
directives. What Trump has shown, again and again, is his deep belief that
the law or its consequences do not apply to him.

Share
3. The Purpose of Schedule F is to Enable Impunity

Trump�s lesson from his time in office is that he did not have enough
appointees or career civil servants who enabled his desire to ignore the
law. His time out of office, including efforts like Project 2025, are
centered on ensuring this does not happen again. He will recruit only
hardcore Trumpists as appointees. It is hard to imagine that Trump�s
retinue would have blithely ignored military rules and shoved aside an
Arlington employee if, say, John Kelly, was with them. But as Kelly has
noted: �The lesson the former president learned from his first term is
don�t put guys like me�in those jobs. The lesson he learned was to find
sycophants.� These sycophants extend to the lawyers who would invent legal
rationales that the laws do not apply to Trump, a tendency that will be
encouraged by a Supreme Court that has offered Trump presumptive immunity
for his misbehaviors.

This still leaves the pesky civil servants. Here, Schedule F solves the
problem. The executive order would allow Trump to fire public officials he
dislikes. We don�t know much about the official who challenged Trump�s
retinue, except that she showed a good deal of courage. Trump�s campaign
manager, Chris LaCivita, labeled her as �despicable� saying she �does not
deserve to represent the hollowed [sic] grounds of Arlington National
Cemetery.� What will happen to her if Trump returns to office?

Many fewer federal employees will stand up for public values in the
knowledge that Trump�s team could easily threaten them or their supervisor
for having the temerity to insist that laws apply to everyone. The Army
issued a statement supporting their employee, saying that she �acted with
professionalism� and was being �unfairly attacked.� This institutional
pushback against Trump�s actions will also be much less likely under
Schedule F, when Trump could simply fire officials who questioned his
behavior.
4. Media Can Get Past Both Sides Coverage

The incident also gives us a hint at what media coverage of such events
might look like in the future. NPR broke that the Arlington official had
reported the incident. Much of the later reporting presented it as a
confrontation between two parties. Many reports included a claim by a Trump
spokesperson, Steven Cheung, that the Arlington official was �clearly
suffering from a mental health episode.�

Imagine seeing yourself presented as crazy in the New York Times, the
Washington Post and much of the national media. Cheung, like his boss,
routinely lies and there was no reason to platform his evidence-free attack
to a national audience.

If Trump returns to office and has a chance to purge the bureaucracy, we
should expect such purges to be accompanied with baseless smears. This
would have two effects. First, it makes the incident into a matter of
controversy, where the media may faithfully reports both sides. Second, for
public officials who don�t want to be labeled as crazy, or traitors, or
members of the deep state, they will be less likely to contest their
dismissals, and in the process, will not reveal wrongdoing.

If Trump's aides didn't put 400 Trump stickers on those headstones it
sounds just like what some of his lunatic supporters would do.

Sick people and if they can be tracked down they should be prosecuted to
the fullest extent of the law.

In article <super70s-C508E8.23141201092024@reader.eternal-
september.org>, super70s@super70s.invalid says...
>
> If Trump's aides didn't put 400 Trump stickers on those headstones it
> sounds just like what some of his lunatic supporters would do.
>
> Sick people and if they can be tracked down they should be prosecuted to
> the fullest extent of the law.

Never happened.