Trump is making the U.S. less safe from terrorist attacks—the question is why?!
History is warning us of what Trump would do
Donald Trump is by design making our nation less safe from potential terrorist attacks. That is not just my opinion, but that of two experts I spoke to this week, Frank Figliuzzi—who served as FBI’s Assistant Director for Counterintelligence—and Rep. Dan Goldman, a former federal prosecutor who now serves on the House Committee on Homeland Security.
We have all seen the headlines about Trump purging our national intelligence agencies of seasoned, non-partisan public servants—including some of the FBI’s top managers overseeing criminal, national security and cyber investigations. On Friday, Trump vowed to fire even more FBI agents who worked on his cases and prosecuting his supporters who waged the Jan. 6 terrorist attack. Trump has also taken the unprecedented and dangerous effort to gut the CIA and National Security Agency by offering buyouts to every single employee there.
Worse, the replacements being hired at our intelligence agencies—as the Washington Post reported Sunday—must pass in essence a Trump loyalty test by answering whether the 2020 election was “stolen” and was the Jan. 6 attack was an “inside job”? As The Post detailed, candidates “who did not give the desired straight “yes” answers, were not selected.”
Rep. Goldman told me point blank that these Trump actions are “making our nation less safe.” The New York representative passionately explained, “by removing senior officials, you are removing hundreds and hundreds of years of expertise and experience and institutional knowledge, and that jeopardizes every single American.”
Figliuzzi-who served in the FBI for more 25 years—echoed that very sentiment, noting that purge of senior intelligence figures and replacing them with unqualified Trump loyalists has already made “America less safe.” Figliuzzi explained that the key to effective intelligence work is developing relationships with people in other nation’s intelligence communities. But with Trump removing so many senior people, the result is our intelligence counterparts in other nations are going to be reluctant to share info that could prevent attacks on our nation for fear that the information will not be protected. Figliuzzi—who serves as MSNBC’s national security expert--noted this is especially true given Trump was criminally charged with “squirreling away hundreds of classified documents at the top-secret level--some of them from foreign powers.”
Goldman hit on that very point in our discussion, explaining, “If our allies think that we’re going to abuse the information that they give for political purposes or we’re not going to protect it with Tulsi Gabbard or Kash Patel overseeing it, which they won’t, then they’re not going to share information.” Same goes for double agents who Goldman warned will not “give information to one of Donald Trump’s buffoons that he just places in the CIA to do his dirty work.”
The bottom line-as Goldman warned—is that the US under Trump is “going to get so much less critical intelligence that we use every day to stop terrorist attacks, to stop massive drug transactions and criminal enterprises. Goldman bluntly concluded that Trump is now “jeopardizing our daily public safety and national security.”
This is where we find ourselves as a nation. And there is no doubt Trump and “President Musk” get this as well. The question is why? I have no evidence that Trump is actually rooting for a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. (Although that is fair question.) But what I can say with absolute certainty is that if one were to happen, Trump would follow the fascist/authoritarian playbook to grab more power, reduce what little checks remain on him and silence dissent.
The reason I can say that with confidence is because history tells us that is exactly what aspiring tyrants do as Yale Professor Timothy Snyder lays out in his book, “On Tyranny.” Snyder writes, “When the terrorist attack comes, remember that authoritarians exploit such events in order to consolidate power.”
Snyder notes that these events are used by authoritarian leaders to “end of checks and balances, the dissolution of opposition parties, the suspension of freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, and so on” all in the alleged name of preventing terrorism. Of course, the real goal is just unchecked power for the aspiring tyrant.
Snyder offers a famous example of the 1933 fire that struck the German parliament—known as The Reichstag--one month after Hitler became chancellor of Germany. While historians have debated who actually started the fire, it’s undisputed that Hitler saw an opportunity to grab power. He quickly issued a decree that suspended the basic rights of German citizens--allowing them to be “preventively detained” by the police. And with the Nazi party in control of the Parliament, less than a month later they passed the “Enabling Act,” known formally as “The Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich.” It was this law that empowered Hitler to rule by decree making him a dictator.
From there, the first group Hitler imprisoned in concentration camps in early 1933 were his political opponents and critics. By July 1933, nearly 27,000 political prisoners were incarcerated in these camps.
Snyder writes, “For tyrants, the lesson of the Reichstag fire is that one moment of shock enables an eternity of submission.”
No one reading this doubts Trump would follow this very fascist playbook—especially since he has already been doing just that as I’ve been warning in articles ranging from Trump honoring the Jan. 6 MAGA terrorists to his use of the FCC to target media outlets.
If there is an attack, we could see Trump call out the U.S. military-under the control of his unqualified, henchman Pete Hegseth—to suppress dissent, occupy Blue cities, take control of media outlets deemed a threat, etc. While the Insurrection Act does limit when a President can use the military on U.S. soil, the law is vague enough to allow a President—without a governor’s approval—to operate in states in certain circumstances, such as to “suppress rebellion” or an “insurrection.” That means the orders on their face will be legal.
And Trump could do more. Alarmingly, Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution enables the suspension of “habeas corpus” in “cases of rebellion or invasion.” That means Trump—using his military—could legally round up and detain critics and others without criminal charges for extended periods of time. President Abraham Lincoln invoked this during the Civil War—and while the Supreme Court ruled only Congress had the power to do so-- Lincoln ignored that order citing the grave circumstances of the Civil War. Trump would do the same.
Just as concerning is that given Republicans in Congress defend every illegal action by Trump, they could pass a law similar to the Enabling Act empowering Trump to have even greater powers.
We know these are challenging times. As I have written before, history tell us that when faced with a fascist threat: Alone we will be crushed—but together we will win. That is why we must remain united, engaged and vigilant. If not, the United States will most certainly fall into the abyss of fascism.
Below is my interview of Frank Figliuzzi:
Here is my interview of Rep. Dan Goldman:
Love your articles, you dig in until you get an answer. I could not even begin to imagine what is on the minds of our fbi agents. Still trying to do the job they swore too do and then having to deal with all the political chaos. Relationships built over decades of trust, just gone, right up a hogs ass.
While not as severe as what Hitler did in 1933, or what Trump is likely to do if a terrorist attack happens here now, recall what happened after September 11, 2001. Anybody who criticized the Bush administration was labeled a “traitor“ and laws were enacted to limit speech (remember “the PATRIOT act“?). It also got us the (neo-fascist-esque-named) Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence. 🤔😉😊