Fact-checking MAGA's viral DoD directive claims

The Trump White House's longest-serving chief of staff, John Kelly, recently blasted former President Donald Trump, saying that the definition of fascism accurately described him. The former Trump staffer also seemingly confirmed the Republican candidate's admiration for Hitler. Having experienced Trump's term in the Oval Office in 2018, he further warned that if he came to power again, he would rule like Hitler.

Earlier this month, the former president told Fox News that the US' “enemy from within… is more dangerous than China, Russia, and all those countries” when asked if he “expected chaos on election day.” Doubling down on the eye-widening rhetoric, he added that a “smart president” can handle them. He also hinted at the military stepping in to “handle” these “enemies” if they disrupt Election Day. “I think it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can't let that happen,” he said.

Why DoD Directive 5240.01 is trending?

However, a peaking focus on not Trump but Joe Biden and Kamala Harris being “America's Hitler” has overtaken this conversation with less than two weeks left before Election Day. Earlier today, an already much-speculated concern since late September again took the far-right corners of social media for a spin. “October Surprise Joe Biden/Kamala Harris have just pushed through DoD Directive 5240.01, giving the Pentagon power for the first time in history to use lethal force to kill Americans on U.S. soil who protest government policies. They're literally Hitler! America's Hitler! Panic,” a MAGA supporter tweeted on X/Twitter, sharing screenshots of the US Defense Department’s Directive in question.

Also read | Tim Walz accuses Trump's ‘dips---’ billionaire ‘running mate' Elon Musk of buying an election at rally with Obama

Concerned netizens called to question how the sitting government could simply push for such a questionable Directive on September 27 – in the days leading up to the November election. However, it should be noted that this particular Directive is not a newly issued document. Readily available for the public to read on the official website of the Department of Defense Senior Intelligence Oversight, it is actually a revised edition of the originally pushed Directive in 2007.

What is the ‘lethal force’ clause about?

With the new update, an additional clause was added to the “Secretary of Defence Approval” section under the Level of Authority paragraph: “Assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality, or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury. It also includes all support to civilian law enforcement officials in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated. Such use of force must be in accordance with DoDD 5210.56, potentially as further restricted based on the specifics of the requested support.”

The revised issuance of the Directive eventually prompted a heated discussion online, focussed on two takeaways, among far-right Internet consumers. With the first, users accused the Department of Defense of potential planned assassinations targetting Americans on US soil. As per the second, the conversation was especially fuelled by the focus on the term “lethal force” in the document, with only days left before the 2024 election.

Former Texas congressman Ron Paul initially instigated the debate on his YouTube show Liberty Report, claiming that the policy rendered the country a “police state.” Republican Maryland congressman Andy Harris also told Newsmax last week how the Democrats were pulling the same move they said Trump would resort to. “This is exactly what the Democrats said Trump would do. And they’re doing it. This means that after an election, they could declare a national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States.”

Former Trump national security advisor and retired Army Lieutenant Gen Michael Flynn was among many to add to the growing trend of scrutinizing the Directive’s revision. He tweeted the update to more than one million of his followers on X.

Pentagon and military policy experts weigh in on rumours

Contrary to these arising claims, the Pentagon and military policy experts cleared up the issue to The War Horse on Wednesday night (US time). “The provisions in [the directive] are not new, and do not authorize the Secretary of Defense to use lethal force against U.S. citizens, contrary to rumours and rhetoric circulating on social media,” Department of Defense spokesperson Sue Gough said.

Similarly, Joseph Nunn, a lawyer with the Liberty & National Security Program at the nonpartisan Brennan Centre for Justice countered Michael Flynn’s remarks. “There’s nothing here,” he told the outlet. “People like Michael Flynn should know how to read a DOD directive.”

The “award-winning nonprofit newsroom educating the public on the military through military news” further debunks the far-right conspiracy theories and unrest, explaining that the revised Directive “does not grant any new powers to the military.” Nunn also pointed out, “This is not an independent source of authority. We really should look at this as an administrative safeguard that is being put in place.

Nunn, who is also an expert on the domestic uses of the military, explained, “A reference to lethal force in a directive like this doesn’t mean they’re planning to have snipers on rooftops in covert ops. The nature of law enforcement will sometimes involve the use of lethal force.” The outlet divulges that the ‘lethal force’ reference in the now-viral Directive insinuates that the Secretary of Defence “must now authorize military intelligence assistance to civilian law enforcement when lethal force might be involved.”

Also read | Diddy threatened to kill 19-year-old college student: New lawsuit

Additionally, the detailed report addresses the far-right’s second point of contention: Why did the language change weeks before the Election?

Department of Defence spokesperson Gough said, “Reissuing 5240.01 was part of normal business of the Department to periodically update guidance and policy” and that it was “in no way timed in relation to the election or any other event.”

“It’s not unusual to update DOD regulations,” political science professor at Marquette University Rise Brooks also attested. “It doesn’t signal some nefarious agenda.”

DOD Directive 5240.01 was last updated in 2020, before the Biden administration’s September 2024 revision, as part of periodic updates. Moreover, it’s not the only directive to be revised or issued in the weeks leading up to the Election.

Periodically revised DoD Directive 5240.01 vs the Posse Comitatus Act

A yet another common accusation on the web, also reiterated by Flynn, claims that Directive 5240.01 goes against The Posse Comitatus Act, which “bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law,” as per the Brennan Centre for Justice. Contrary to the claims blowing up online, DoD’s Gough said, “The updated issuance remains consistent with DoD’s adherence to the Posse Comitatus Act, commitment to civil rights, and support of other safeguards in place for the protection of the American people.”

Meanwhile, Risa Brooks doubled down on the idea that these bubbling conspiracies and rumours are politically motivated. “This sort of politicisation, this idea of sowing mistrust in the military in order to gain partisan advantage, is really corrosive. There’s a motive. There’s something to be gained by spreading these rumours.”

Still, The War Horse underlines that, as Andy Harris said, the Democratic presidential hopeful “could declare a national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States” in light of her potential Election victory if she wanted. The Insurrection Act reportedly would grant her the presidential power to temporarily suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, leaving the description of a rebellion up to the president’s understanding. “There are essentially zero procedural safeguards in the Insurrection Act,” Nunn says.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.