{shortcode-97518ac7e0361bb49bf923aadbe58007540e6e7f}

The future of American democracy is at stake in this election.

Retired Marine General John F. Kelly made that abundantly clear when he called former U.S. President Donald Trump a fascist in an interview with The New York Times last week.

Kelly, former White House Chief of Staff to Trump, chose striking words. But his warning is not baseless — far from it — and Harvard students should keep it in mind when they head to the polls on Tuesday.

I am fortunate enough to have some personal connection to Kelly. My Dad first met the general when he spoke at The Basic School in Virginia — the Marine Corps program that trains newly commissioned and appointed officers — and to this day, he praises Kelly’s exemplary qualities: his commitment to the Corps, his authentic leadership style, and his deep love for his son — who had been killed in action in 2010, making Kelly the highest-ranking officer to lose a child in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Kelly left a complex legacy in the Trump administration — first as the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and later as White House Chief of Staff.

But the most telling chapter was his final month in the White House in December 2018, when it was revealed that Kelly and Trump were no longer on speaking terms.

And last week, though not his first public criticism of the former President since leaving the administration, Kelly chose to speak out most forcefully against Trump in a widely circulated New York Times interview.

We must not take lightly Kelly’s recent warning about Trump’s fascist tendencies. Marines are trained from the moment they begin bootcamp (or Officer Candidate School) to treat political issues delicately. This is a principle that military members take seriously.

Having grown up on a military base, I witnessed this principle firsthand. During the 2016 election, I frequently tried to engage the adults around me in discussions about their views on the race, but they were unwilling to discuss politics in public.

In fact, the U.S. Department of Defense bars active duty military personnel from participating in most partisan political activities when in uniform. The same restrictions apply even at higher levels of military leadership.

Even after retirement, breaking the military’s apolitical tradition and leveraging the credibility of one’s rank has a cost. In 2016, for instance, when retired Marine Gen. John R. Allen and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn spoke at the Democratic and Republican national conventions, respectively, they both faced criticism for using their rank to politicize the military.

Moreover, the leadership structure of the military instills a deep, at least public, respect for superior officers. Marines are taught that openly challenging superiors undermines the mission of the Corps. Disagreement is reserved for behind closed doors.

And yet, General Kelly chose to speak out.

Despite Trump being his direct superior, despite the long-standing military tradition of political neutrality, despite the risk to his reputation among his fellow generals, Kelly criticized Trump more forcefully than even the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris.

And yet, the response to Kelly’s comments has been muted.

Kelly’s allegations — that Trump admired Hitler’s generals and valued absolute obedience from his top military brass, that Trump considered deploying troops against political opponents, and that Trump flagrantly disregarded the constitutional limits of his office — have blended into the broader chorus of criticism of the former President.

When politicians seeking advantage criticize their opponents, we often discount their rhetoric as partisan maneuvering.

But when a four-star Marine general sounds the alarm — despite every instinct and institutional pressure to remain silent — that Trump is a threat to the future of American democracy, we must listen.

Thomas A. Tait ’26 is a Government Concentrator in Eliot House.