John Nagl, Haverford School Head, Apologizes For Anti Trump Letter
Nagl sent an email to the Haverford Community in which he apologized for expressing his opinions “openly in a way that reflected on Haverford School.”
Earlier this week, I published an opinion piece intended to demonstrate my love of and obligation to support and defend the American Constitution. The right to express our opinions freely is, of course, one of the great gifts granted to us as American citizens.
However, I recognize that my primary role and responsibility is to be Haverford’s ninth Head of School. I must temper my confidence and passion with judiciousness, and remember that I represent all members of our great community. I should not have expressed my political opinions openly in a way that reflected on The Haverford School and I sincerely apologize for doing so.
I now return my full attention to readying the School to receive our boys in person on the first day of school Sept. 9.
Thank you for your forbearance, and for your love of Haverford.
The original story posted here, on August 12 about John Nagl’s letter, drew an unusually large number of comments. The majority of those comments were negative about Nagl, but there were some positive comments as well.
Here is the letter that John Nagl Co-Authored with Paul Yingling, Originally Published in DefenseOne.com. It is directed to Mark A. Milley Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Dear General Milley:
As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you are well aware of your duties in ordinary times: to serve as principal military advisor to the president of the United States, and to transmit the lawful orders of the president and Secretary of Defense to combatant commanders. In ordinary times, these duties are entirely consistent with your oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
We do not live in ordinary times. The president of the United States is actively subverting our electoral system, threatening to remain in office in defiance of our Constitution. In a few months’ time, you may have to choose between defying a lawless president or betraying your Constitutional oath. We write to assist you in thinking clearly about that choice. If Donald Trump refuses to leave office at the expiration of his constitutional term, the United States military must remove him by force, and you must give that order.
Due to a dangerous confluence of circumstances, the once-unthinkable scenario of authoritarian rule in the United States is now a very real possibility. First, as Mr. Trump faces near certain electoral defeat, he is vigorously undermining public confidence in our elections. Second, Mr. Trump’s defeat would result in his facing not merely political ignominy, but also criminal charges. Third, Mr. Trump is assembling a private army capable of thwarting not only the will of the electorate but also the capacities of ordinary law enforcement. When these forces collide on January 20, 2021, the U.S. military will be the only institution capable of upholding our Constitutional order.
There can be little doubt that Mr. Trump is facing electoral defeat. More than 160,000 Americans have died from COVID 19, and that toll is likely to rise to 300,000 by November. One in ten U.S. workers is unemployed, and the U.S. economy in the last quarter suffered the greatest contraction in its history. Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. The Economist estimates that Mr. Trump’s chances of losing the election stand at 91 percent.
Faced with these grim prospects, Mr. Trump has engaged in a systemic disinformation campaign to undermine public confidence in our elections. He has falsely claimed that mail-in voting is “inaccurate and fraudulent.” He is actively sabotaging the U.S. Postal Service in an effort to delay and discredit mail-in votes. He has suggested delaying the 2020 election, despite lacking the authority to do so.
The stakes of the 2020 election are especially high for Mr. Trump; in defeat, he will likely face criminal prosecution. The Manhattan District Attorney is investigating the Trump Organization for possible bank and insurance fraud related to the overvaluation of financial assets. New York’s Attorney General is conducting similar investigations, having successfully subpoenaed Trump’s financial records from Deutsche Bank. Mr. Trump allegedly pressured the U.S. ambassador to Great Britain to pressure the British Government to move the British Open golf tournament to Trump Turnberry Resort in Scotland. This incident is but one of many examples of self-dealing that may lead to federal criminal charges against the president.
Given this dizzying array of threats not merely to his political prospects, but also his liberty and wealth, Mr. Trump is following the playbook of dictators throughout history: he is building a private army answerable only to him. When Caesar faced the prospect of a trial in Rome, he did not return to face his day in court. He unleashed an army personally loyal to him alone on the Roman government. No student of history, Mr. Trump nevertheless appears to be following Caesar’s example. The president’s use of militarized Homeland Security agents against domestic political demonstrations constitutes the creation of a paramilitary force unaccountable to the public. The members of this private army, often lacking police insignia or other identification, exist not to enforce the law but to intimidate the president’s political opponents.
These powerful crosscurrents—Mr. Trump’s electoral defeat, his assault on the integrity of our elections, his impending criminal prosecution, and his creation of a private army—will collide on January 20. Rather than accept the peaceful transfer of power that has been the hallmark of American democracy since its inception. Mr. Trump may refuse to leave office. He would likely offer as a fig leaf of legitimacy the shopworn lies about election fraud. Mr. Trump’s acolytes in right-wing media will certainly rush to repeat and amplify these lies, manufacturing sufficient evidence to provide a pretext of plausibility. America’s greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War will come about by a president who simply refuses to leave office.
America’s political and legal institutions have so atrophied that they are ill-prepared for this moment. Senate Republicans, already reduced to supplicant status, will remain silent and inert, as much to obscure their complicity as to retain their majority. The Democrat-led House of Representatives will certify the Electoral College results, which Mr. Trump will dismiss as fake news. The courts, flooded with cases from both Democrats and Mr. Trump’s legal team, will take months working through the docket, producing reasoned rulings that Trump will alternately appeal and ignore.
Then the clock will strike 12:01 PM, January 20, 2021, and Donald Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office. The street protests will inevitably swell outside the White House, and the ranks of Trump’s private army will grow inside its grounds. The speaker of the House will declare the Trump presidency at an end, and direct the Secret Service and Federal Marshals to remove Trump from the premises. These agents will realize that they are outmanned and outgunned by Trump’s private army, and the moment of decision will arrive.
At this moment of Constitutional crisis, only two options remain. Under the first, U.S. military forces escort the former president from the White House grounds. Trump’s little green men, so intimidating to lightly armed federal law enforcement agents, step aside and fade away, realizing they would not constitute a good morning’s work for a brigade of the 82nd Airborne [Emphasis added] . Under the second, the U.S. military remains inert while the Constitution dies. The succession of government is determined by extralegal violence between Trump’s private army and street protesters; Black Lives Matter Plaza becomes Tahrir Square.
As the senior military officer of the United States, the choice between these two options lies with you. In the Constitutional crisis described above, your duty is to give unambiguous orders directing U.S. military forces to support the Constitutional transfer of power. Should you remain silent, you will be complicit in a coup d’état. You were rightly criticized for your prior active complicity in the president’s use of force against peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square. Your passive complicity in an extralegal seizure of political power would be far worse.
For 240 years, the United States has been spared the horror of violent political succession. Imperfect though it may be, our Union has been moving toward greater perfection, from one peaceful transfer of power to the next. The rule of law created by our Constitution has made this miracle possible. However, our Constitutional order is not self-sustaining. Throughout our history, Americans have laid down their lives so that this form of government may endure. Continuing the unfinished work for which these heroes fell now falls to you.
Lest you forget:
“I, Mark A. Milley, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The fate of our Republic may well depend upon your adherence to this oath.
Respectfully yours,
John Nagl and Paul Yingling
Let me begin by noting that John Nagl’s service to our country is to be honored. During the mid-1990’s, one of our sons attended the school for a couple of years. I have been a Republican for most of my years and I generally support President Trump’s policies.
Having said that I oppose his open letter to General Milley. There is no serious evidence of President Trump refusing to leave his office if he loses the November election. To the contrary, it appears that his predecessor interfered with the 2016 election and his Presidency. Now, his 2016 opponent, has suggested that the 2020 opponent refuse to accept the results of the 2020 election if Trump is re-elected. In my opinion, neither President Trump nor his 2020 opponent are in a position to refuse to accept the results. Therefore, Mr. Nagl’s letter was pure posturing and not befitting the Head of Haverford School.
I am happy that he has resigned. It is not clear that he was actually asked to leave by the Board of the Haverford School. If not, the Board should go on record. If you are charging as much as $40,000 for one year’s education, the school should make extra effort to not have its Head appear to be partisans in a Presidential election.
It is time for wisdom and sanity, not Marxism and violence, to reign in America again.
Thank you.
This is a great day for the Haverford School! Congratulations to the Board of Trustees to force Nagl out. Now it is time to also get rid of the two assistant heads, CFO, and the Director of HR. Let the healing begin!!
Yes, he should’ve been fired for what he did. He wasn’t. On good authority it was just the straw that broke the camels back with this guy. He was really fired for all the arrogance displayed in his decision making by following the herd as mentioned before and his lack of ability to lead these boys to be great men. Greatness is a strong term to use. This is not The Haverford School way of doing things. There are great people at Haverford but John Nagl is not one of them…. the proof of that is that he got fired. If you don’t like that …. Then leave. The school will show you the door on your way out.
Fascinating, the cowards who attack John are the ones who don’t identify themselves.. It’s says so much more about them than it does about a Leader like John. As the father of a former teacher and student under John’s leadership, the powerful and courageous message in his Op-ed is exactly what I would expect from such a patriot. Enjoy your next “command” John and thanks for what you gave to the HS community.
Good riddance. He was bad for Haverford, and has overseen a decline in quality in my opinion of education, always willing to suck it up to the latest in educational trend fashion setters but not willing to make sure the school focused on the basics.
Real courage would be bucking what your peers think and do what’s right for the kids, not going along with the crowd.
He was forced to resign, but this was overdue. This was just the trigger point.
Great day for the Haverford School! I commend the Board of Trustees for forcing John Nagl to resign. He has been an embarrassment! Now it is time to also get rid of the two Assistant Heads and the CFO.
Great day for the Haverford School! Congratulations to the Board of Trustees for making the right decision and forcing Nagl to resign. Now it is time to also get rid of the two assistant heads, CFO and the Director of H.R. Let the healing begin!
I saw where the Haverford School recently installed a wall of values, and featured on the wall is “Courage.” Courage is the willingness to face risks to do the right thing… which is exactly what Nagl did when he used his unique experiences and perspective to bring to light a contingency of what January, 2021, may possibility look like. As uncomfortable as this may feel for some, this is what role modeling courage looks like, and it’s a good example for the young men at Haverford to learn from.
This is a sad day for Haverford and the country. Free speech is the very foundation of the constitution which Nagl is perfectly entitled to express. He is a military scholar and commentator. Shame on you, Haverford School. You will be a lesser institution for it.
John has nothing to apologize for. Nothing he said refelcts poorly on him or on Haverford. As a fellow West Point graduate, I am proud of all of his service to our country (in and out of uniform) and his willingness to speak truth to power.
Moreover, his tone is measured and his conclusions are accurate. Being the head of a school does not preclude one from having political opinions or from expressing them.
In times of crisis and injustice, that is called leadership.
In a times of great need, great men step up to fill that need. John Nagl is one such man – a man with the courage and the conviction to say what needs to be said, and do what needs to be done. It is a shame that an apology was required for simply telling a much needed truth. Many fellow West Point Alumni stand behind John and his continued adherence to our Honor Code of not lying, cheating, stealing – nor tolerating those who do. Well done, John!
Thank you John and Paul, for taking the time to state your well thought-out and informed opinion and analysis. An open discussion should be welcomed in the “market place of ideas” – never censored. Hopefully Haverford School is a quality educational institution that understands this.
Proud to see one of my West Point alumni voice an opinion many of us agree with. As a fellow West Point graduate, I know we were inculcated in the 3 words emblazoned on our crest: “ Duty, Honor, Country “. It recognizes no political affiliation
This country needs courageous scholars to speak out during these unprecedented times. Many high profile retired officers have also spoken up in defense of our Constitution and Democracy.
Haverford should think about how advantageous it will be in a few months (and forever after) to have tangible proof THEIR head was on the right side of history. The filth that will be exposed as the Trump Administration ends, and the rats flee the sinking ship, is probably going to be utterly mind-blowing.
Please don’t apologize, It was one of the finest ideas to have come from The Haverford School. The school should be proud of John Nagl
The Haverford School cannot endure this man’s “leadership” another day.He should be summarily dismissed.
Impulsive, full of empty apologies, but never sorry for the damage he causes wherever he goes. Sounds about right. The rumor is he’s about the be fired. Let’s see if the bosses at Haverford have a spine.