In recent days, The New York Times has published opinion columns that have sparked strong reactions on social media. Critics have accused the publication of promoting ideas such as a military coup against former President Donald Trump and calling for significant changes to American political institutions, including the abolition of the U.S. Senate and Electoral College, and increasing the number of Supreme Court justices.
One column, authored by former Obama administration officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, discussed concerns about the role of the military in domestic law enforcement under Trump’s leadership. The authors wrote:
“We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.
By ordering 800 National Guard troops to Washington, on the pretext of an illusory crime wave, President Trump has further dragged the U.S. military into domestic law enforcement, in a move credibly perceived as an ominous ‘test case.’ This continues what the administration started in California in June as part of its deportation efforts.
Unfortunately, though we (and others) had hoped that the military would only respond to calls to action in American cities and states kicking and screaming, we no longer expect resistance from that institution. Once, perhaps, traditionalist officers might have leaned on protocol and refused to heed a lawless order, taking inspiration from the generals — Mark Milley and James Mattis — who resisted the uprooting of established military standards in the first Trump term.”
The column prompted criticism online with some commentators claiming it suggested support for a military coup against Trump.
A subsequent opinion piece published by The New York Times called for major structural reforms within American government institutions. This article also faced backlash on social media platforms where users described it as “openly calling to overthrow the government” and criticized its stance on constitutional changes.
Some critics questioned whether advocating for such changes is consistent with democratic principles or if these proposals were motivated by dissatisfaction with current political outcomes.
The debate highlights ongoing divisions regarding institutional reforms in U.S. governance systems. Calls for changing or abolishing structures like the Electoral College or expanding Supreme Court membership have been recurring topics among certain political groups seeking broader representation or different balances of power within federal institutions.
