Thom Talks with . . . Steve Schmidt

Trump’s Agenda Could Tear the Nation Apart

Donald Trump's agenda is the most dangerous threat to America since the secession, according to former Republican Steve Schmidt.

---

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

Thom:
America is in a crisis right now, and it's a crisis that has very little to do with policy and everything to do with the future of democracy—which is essentially what you've been talking about in The Warning, your Substack newsletter. What's your assessment, particularly given what we've seen over the last few days with these seemingly insane suggestions for cabinet positions coming from Mr. Trump? I'm thinking he's putting people in place to break the American government, arguably because he's working for Putin or because he and Putin share a similar ideal of making the world safe for autocrats—to hell with democracy. I'm curious about your take on all this.

Steve:
Well, we're at a very dangerous moment in the country, and these aren't suggestions—they're nominations. These are the people he's nominated to the security ministries: the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense. They are all historically, spectacularly unfit and unqualified for life-and-death jobs. By any standard that existed just a few years ago, society would have recognized them as an abomination and dangerous.

What Trump is doing is probing to see if the Senate will put up any limits to his authority. Let me give you one scenario: Donald Trump could look at any Fox News lieutenant colonel and decide to nominate them to four-star rank, put them before the U.S. Senate, and send them off to command Central Command. He has that power with an acquiescent Senate. These people must be stopped; they must be confronted. This is not normal; it's not right.

Seventy-four million people voted for Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. We have rights, we have a voice, we have representation. Every one of us should expect that our democratic representatives will get off their asses, get into the fight, and communicate cogently and clearly about the manifest dangers to the country.

During the campaign, Donald Trump campaigned as a fascist. When the campaign ended, I was very clear—I said to my readers and audience that I would be precise in my use of language. I would not call him a fascist as a president until he governed like one, with the full understanding that no person who campaigned as a fascist has ever failed to govern like one.

Now, Donald Trump, in the early weeks of his presidency, is putting forward these manifestly unfit people who will go into vital institutions, smash them, and light them on fire. In the weeks and months ahead, we face very difficult days in this country. We'll see tremendous abuses. The president-elect has indicated that the U.S. military will be deployed into the heartland of the country with unspecified authorities and orders to participate in mass deportations. Some reports suggest that one instruction involves building massive detention camps.

Whatever form these camps take and whatever euphemisms we choose to describe them, I must say this: I lived in Germany for a little over a year in the 1980s, right near the East German border. I recall that the first camps built by the Nazis—Dachau is the most famous—were prison camps. The first people imprisoned were mostly the socialist and communist members of parliament and newspaper writers.

It took Hitler less than three months to lock down all of Germany. He had the press under control within a month or two. To what extent do you think these prison camps that Trump is building for undocumented immigrants—camps that enjoy broad Republican support—will be used for other purposes? Does that concern you?

Thom:
The abuse of power deeply concerns me. Do I think we're going to jump into a moment where Trump's Gestapo is knocking on doors and dragging people away in the middle of the night? No. But I do believe people will be audited, inconvenienced, and harassed by their government. They’ll be made to fear it. Speaking out against Trump will come with a price.

The autocracy of the 21st century is much less heavy-handed than 20th-century autocracies, partly due to technology. During the Soviet Union, we saw austere, boring television. One lesson Putin took from the Cold War is that television should never be boring again.

When you have a leader people fear, they tilt the field, creating a special class of rules for a hierarchical group of people. These individuals can do what they want with the blessing of the leader. That’s what’s happening in Hungary, and it’s what many MAGA Republicans admire about Viktor Orbán. That’s what they want—illiberal democracy, where the president controls society through intimidation.

Steve:
Let me lay out a scenario for you and get your thoughts on how Democrats or Americans should respond. I’m increasingly convinced this is what will play out:

On January 20th, Trump takes office. On January 21st, Congress goes back into session. Mike Johnson proposes a concurrent resolution stating that on January 22nd, the House and Senate will go into recess. John Thune, not wanting to stick his neck out, says no.

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution—a provision never before used—if the House and Senate don’t agree on a concurrent resolution for recess, the president decides. Trump declares the House and Senate in recess for a week. In that hour, he recess-appoints his entire cabinet—the whole parade of horribles—who are then legal until January 21st, 2027. What do we do?

Thom:
The first thing we’d have to do is recognize America’s new reality. Functionally, the Republic designed by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison will have fallen—with a procedural vote and a parliamentary trick.

What Trump would stand as then is an American Caesar: unchecked, unrestrained, above the law, with a compliant media and a feckless Congress. At that point, Americans would need to protest, strike, and do everything nonviolently possible to stop it.

Steve:
Do you really think a procedural move in Congress would cause Americans to pour into the streets? Strikes are typically led by unions, and we’re at 11% union density—far below France’s 75%.

Thom:
If what you described happens, we’d be in the gravest American crisis. Secession? Possibly. It would be monumental. I hope millions of Americans would resist nonviolently to stop it.

Steve:
I hope so too.