Times Essay Stirs A Lot Of Debate
The echo of an earlier, more volatile age seems to be reverberating through the pages of America’s most prestigious newspaper, and not everyone is applauding. The New York Times, once revered as the paper of record, is now facing a storm of accusations—many centered around a provocative guest essay that, depending on who you ask, either offers a sobering analysis of civil-military relations or edges dangerously close to advocating a military coup.
At the heart of the controversy is an essay penned by former National Security Council officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson. Their central argument? That the U.S. military, once perceived as a constitutional firewall against presidential overreach, may no longer serve that function under Donald Trump. They cite what they view as the passive acceptance of Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., and argue that today’s generals are unlikely to resist potentially unlawful orders in the future.
The New York Times is pro-military coup against President Trump.
What a flaming pile of trash in The Times, written by former Obama NSC officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson. pic.twitter.com/0Ds0LxbGUZ
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) August 14, 2025
To be clear, Simon and Stevenson never explicitly call for a coup. They lament the fading of what they consider principled resistance within the upper ranks of the military, referencing figures like Gen. James Mattis and Gen. Mark Milley, who were seen as bulwarks against Trump’s more unorthodox directives in his first term. But the line between concern and provocation is razor thin, especially in the current political climate.
Commentators on X (formerly Twitter) didn’t hold back. From GOP strategists to tech founders and columnists, the consensus among critics was sharp: The Times had gone too far. Some said the essay essentially fantasized about the military saving the nation from Trump—a narrative that brushes uncomfortably close to the logic of a junta. Others decried it as “dangerous rhetoric,” undermining the very democratic values it claimed to defend.
NYT would absolutely support a military coup if the Democrats were in the white House. Spare me otherwise. They'd then berate you in how good and just it was. Their urban educated readers who went to NYU would disown you as friends and family for disagreeing, acting as the… https://t.co/AfoYM3J1lC
— Kenneth Rapoza (@BRICbreaker) August 14, 2025
In response, both the New York Times and the essay's authors stood by the piece, insisting it was a warning, not a wish. Simon clarified that advocating a coup was never the intent, stating military leaders should offer their advice—and resign if it's ignored, not revolt.
Still, the damage may already be done. The essay, along with its multiple headlines—including one archived as “How the Military Became Another Instrument of Trump’s Power”—is being used by critics to question the media’s role in escalating political tensions. The contrast between this and the Times' past editorial stances—like its condemnation of National Guard deployments during left-wing protests—only fuels the fire.
By the way, this is the very definition of a coup — and it’s the exact opposite of the oath every member of the military swears to uphold. https://t.co/9wHxH1Sa1D
— Javon A. Price (@JavonAPrice) August 14, 2025