Giving New Meaning to the Phrase, 'You're Dead to Me'
President Trump prioritizes retribution of the worst kind in his second term.
One of Donald Trump’s first acts as president this time around was to cancel Secret Service protection for his former national security advisor, John Bolton. Bolton had been receiving reinstated protection since 2021, when federal agencies under the Biden administration uncovered a plot by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to assassinate him.
A member of the IRGC was later charged over the plot, which is believed to have been in retaliation for the United States killing IRGC commander, Qasem Soleimani — an initiative Bolton helped lead under Trump. In other words, Iran, seeking revenge, put a price on Bolton’s head. He has since faced additional threats over Soleimani’s death, as has Trump himself.
While Trump often pats himself on the back for taking out Soleimani (as well he should), he hasn’t expressed much appreciation for Bolton’s role in the operation. In fact, any positive contribution Bolton made during the first Trump administration has long since been forgotten.
You see, Bolton committed the ultimate sin: he became an outspoken critic of his old boss, Donald Trump — a crime so abominable that Trump decided Bolton was unworthy of continued government-protection against foreign assassins.
Bolton responded to the act of retribution in a statement:
I am disappointed but not surprised that President Trump has decided to terminate the protection previously provided by the United States Secret Service. Notwithstanding my criticisms of President Biden's national-security policies, he nonetheless made the decision to extend that protection to me in 2021. The Justice Department filed criminal charges against an Iranian Revolutionary Guard official in 2022 for attempting to hire a hit man to target me. That threat remains today, as also demonstrated by the recent arrest of someone trying to arrange for President Trump's own assassination. The American people can judge for themselves which President made the right call.
In sane times, such judgment wouldn’t require a whole lot of deliberation. John Bolton is at proven risk of being murdered by a foreign government because he helped wipe out one of the top terrorist leaders in the world. Under those circumstances, our government should protect him, not — in morally depraved fashion — hang him out to dry because he hurt Donald Trump’s feelings.
Sadly, this is far from the first time Trump’s ego has taken precedence over matters of life and death. He was perfectly at ease when his supporters were beating the crap out of police officers for three hours at the U.S. Capitol — crimes for which he would later issue those supporters a sweeping pardon. During the same event, he scoffed at the notion that he should at all care about the safety of his vice president, whose death the violent mob chanted for. Heck, he even suggested that another former member of his administration deserved execution.
The Dispatch’s Sarah Isgur, who also worked in the first Trump administration, tweeted about a broader institutional problem with Trump’s decision on Bolton:
Ending John Bolton’s security detail (not clearance) has one major consequence: Either nobody sane will be willing go into govt or those that do will refuse to stand up to the bad guys if a future president is going to let them be killed bc of political differences.
She’s right, but this is hardly a new concern. Over the last eight years, countless public servants have been subjected to threats, harassment, and ultimately being purged from office (and a political future) for being deemed insufficiently loyal and servile to Donald J. Trump. This was happening even when Trump was out of office. While there were bad apples in the bunch, lots of them were smart, experienced, dedicated patriots who love this country and have held true to their oath to defend the Constitution.
Now, they’re gone.
Is this a healthy thing for our nation? Does it encourage capable people — individuals of integrity — to serve it? And to Isgur’s point, why would such people go out on a limb, and put themselves in potential danger in service to our country, if something as menial as a political difference could disqualify them from protection by our government?
Trump may not care about any of these questions, or the safety of those who get in the way of his ambitions, but Americans of good faith should.
John,
Be more balanced with your remarks!
This development was very disturbing to me as well, on several additional fronts, than even mentioned here. I do find it ironically rich that the Iranians properly credit Bolton for his role on Soleimani, while Trump cannot.
) The President of Red Eye has an additional problem in that he is on his own political island. If, God forbid, something happens to him...should the Media & Left complain at all, it would only be as a way to blame Trump (which he'll mostly deserve). Many political islanders end up eventually changing positions & moving to the other side (don't complain to me if Cheney or Kinzinger wind up doing exactly that), but Bolton never would. Right or wrong, he's very principled. I can only hope he hires his own personal security.
) To me, the context is much broader here than just Trump's retribution - something more like: 'politicization of violence'. I'm personally disturbed by ALL of it: Trump's pettiness with Bolton here, pardons of the Jan 6 violent criminals, Paul Pelosi's attack, the Left's yawn at threats on Supreme Court Justices, the BLM riots, the persecution of Daniel Penny, etc etc etc. I would also add in the deliberate downplaying of Trump's assassination attempt (note I completely disagree with Daly that the "Trump Fell" type headlines were by-and-large unintentionally misleading). But this violence all needs to be condemned in the harshest possible terms by all political figures & media. We all know it won't though & to me, Trump is missing a real unifying opportunity to be a Leader by example on that exact front.
) As a perfect example of that aforementioned broader perspective - Daly's own comments here could apply almost EXACTLY to Daniel Penny & its precedence:
"Is this a healthy thing for our nation? Does it encourage capable people — individuals of integrity — to HELP OTHERS IN DANGER? Why would such people go out on a limb, and put themselves in potential danger in service to HELPLESS VICTIMS, if something as menial as a political difference could disqualify them from protection by our government?".