Follow us on social

google cta
190930-d-sw162-2211-scaled

Report: Trump's post-election 'coup' was against his runaway generals

According to this exhaustive reporting, Trump's thwarted revenge scenario was not what you might think. It just didn't work.

Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

It turns out that Trump was planning a military "coup" in the last desperate weeks of his tenure, but not the kind you might think. According to Axios reporters Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, Trump did want to railroad his own military generals — by demanding they get all of their troops out of Afghanistan, as well as Germany, Africa, Iraq and Syria, too.

And, according to Swan and Basu's exhaustive reporting, the generals pushed back, thwarting Trump's plans to completely withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of the year. Instead he achieved only drawdown of only 2,500 personnel by January 15, leaving his successor to announce the a full withdrawal by Sept. 11 of this year. There was a modest drawdown in Iraq and a shifting of troops out of Somalia before Trump left, but a delay in plans to extract personnel from Germany resulted in Biden already reversing the orders, and the Syrian question has been left off the table completely.

The Axios article examines the timeline from Trump’s election loss and his swift firing of several top Pentagon officials, including DoD Secretary Mark Esper, who was replaced by Homeland Security official and former military officer Christopher Miller. Ret. Col. Doug Macgregor, a military iconoclast who made his fame in the first Persian Gulf War was brought in as a top advisor. Macgregor, a longtime critic of U.S. war policy and an advocate of pulling out of Afghanistan and other protracted operations overseas (and of the generals, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley), was seen as Trump’s interlocutor for executing his final demand, which was sidelining the generals.

And he was, as much as he could. According to Swan and Basu, Trump had trusted aide John McEntee hand Macgregor a list on Nov. 9 that said bluntly:

1. Get us out of Afghanistan.

2. Get us out of Iraq and Syria.

3. Complete the withdrawal from Germany.

4. Get us out of Africa.

“This is what he wants you to do,” McEntee told Macgregor, who responded that this must come in the form of an official presidential memorandum or acting Secretary Miller won’t have the authority to do any of it. He helped McEntee draft the memo. It was sent out, but as Swan and Basu describe in laborious detail, it got “lost” in translation. Days later a memo was signed by the lame duck president, but it was not the one Macgregor helped to draft. There was such a backlash in the Pentagon that by the time Miller and aides got through with Trump, he signed off on something much more tepid, including the smaller drawdown from Afghanistan by Jan. 15. 

“And with that, Trump folded on total withdrawal for the last time as president,” Swan and Basu write.

This is an important read, which also includes new speculation about whether Gen. Milley was actively working against the civilian leadership in the Pentagon during this period. Interestingly, while Trump was railing about “stop the steal” he wasn’t doing what everyone had accused him of doing on the military side: he wasn’t using Macgregor, Miller, et al., to stay in office. Rather, he seemed to believe that following through with his pledge to “end forever wars” would be the ultimate revenge against Esper, Milley, and Generals H.R. McMaster and Jim Mattis. Too bad he did not achieve this one post-election fantasy.


Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Vice President Mike Pence; President Donald J. Trump; Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper; and Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, outgoing Chairman, render honors during an Armed Forces Welcome Ceremony as Army Gen. Mark A. Milley becomes the 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at Joint Base Myer – Henderson Hall, Va., Sept. 30, 2019. Milley takes the reigns from Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, the 19th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (DoD Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. James K. McCann)
google cta
Asia-Pacific
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.