This week, a Defense Department official, Erick Chomskis, published an op-ed in The Hill claiming that Donald Trump faces unprecedented resistance to executive power—an assertion challenged by the article’s author. Chomskis dismisses historical figures like Harry Truman, whose actions established a framework of checks against unilateral military action. Truman’s involvement in the Korean War was under UN authority, contradicting Chomskis’ claim that it set a precedent for unilateral presidential actions.
The piece critiques Chomskis for mischaracterizing examples from presidents like Obama, who also operated under international legal frameworks, unlike Trump, who is portrayed as acting unilaterally without congressional oversight or legal justification. The author argues that Chomskis’ work exemplifies “disinformation” by omitting critical legal contexts and equating Trump’s actions to legitimate historical precedents.
Furthermore, the article highlights a double standard in how the Republican establishment has responded to Trump compared to their past actions regarding Obama. The author concludes that Chomskis’ op-ed is not history but rather a form of “propaganda” aimed at undermining the constraints on presidential power, ultimately siding with authoritarian narratives. The Hill, therefore, is criticized for publishing such misleading information without clarification, prompting reflection on its integrity as an information source.
