It was June 2020, and Washington was basically a tinderbox. You probably remember the images: protesters in Lafayette Square, the thick smell of tear gas, and that incredibly controversial photo op where President Trump held a Bible in front of St. John’s Church. But what wasn't public then—and what eventually became one of the most talked-about documents in recent military history—was the General Mark Milley resignation letter.
Except, he didn't actually send it.
📖 Related: Zoraida Buxo Endorsing Trump: What Really Happened in Allentown
He wrote it. He obsessed over it. He drafted multiple versions, some short and blunt, others long and searingly philosophical. But at the 11th hour, the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military decided to shove those pages into a drawer. Why? Because he thought he could do more good by "fighting from the inside." It’s a decision that still divides people today. Some see it as the ultimate act of a "Deep State" protector, while others view it as a cowardly failure to take a public stand when it mattered most.
The Letter That Almost Shook the White House
The draft of the General Mark Milley resignation letter surfaced much later, thanks to the reporting of Peter Baker and Susan Glasser in their book The Divider. When you read the text now, it’s honestly shocking how raw it is. Milley didn't just say he was quitting; he basically accused the President of the United States of being a threat to the Republic.
In one draft, Milley wrote, "It is my belief that you were doing great and irreparable harm to my country." He didn't stop there. He accused Trump of making a "concerted effort" to politicize the military and—most damingly—of "using the military to create fear in the minds of the people." For a four-star general who had spent 40 years in uniform, these weren't just words. They were a declaration of total institutional war.
✨ Don't miss: Tokyo Japan Earthquake 2011: What People Often Forget About the Day the Skyscrapers Swayed
What was actually in the text?
If you look at the different versions, Milley was grappling with a few specific things:
- The Lafayette Square incident: He felt he had been "used" as a political prop by walking across that square in his combat fatigues.
- The International Order: He claimed Trump was "ruining" the global alliances that the "Greatest Generation" had built after 1945.
- The Constitution: He repeatedly mentioned his oath, essentially saying that the President’s actions were forcing him to choose between his boss and his country.
Why didn't he send it?
This is where things get kinda messy. Milley didn't just wake up and decide to stay. He consulted people. He talked to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and retired General James Dubik. They basically told him that if he quit, Trump would just appoint a "yes man" who might actually follow through on some of the more extreme ideas being floated, like using the Insurrection Act to put active-duty troops on American streets.
So, Milley stayed. He decided his new mission was to ensure there were "no illegal wars" and "no use of military force for political gain." To his critics, this was a massive overreach. They argued that a general’s job isn't to be a "guardrail" against a democratically elected leader; it’s to follow orders or get out. To his supporters, he was the only thing standing between the country and a total breakdown of the civilian-military divide.
The "Fascism" Accusation
One of the most intense parts of the General Mark Milley resignation letter drafts was his reference to World War II. He wrote that between 1914 and 1945, 150 million people were slaughtered because of "tyrannies and dictatorships." He told Trump directly (well, in the draft) that the President subscribed to "many of the principles that we fought against."
💡 You might also like: Oneida Correctional Facility NY: Why This Closed Prison Still Matters
Think about that for a second. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was essentially calling his Commander-in-Chief a fascist in a formal resignation draft. That is a level of tension we haven't seen in the Pentagon since maybe the era of Douglas MacArthur and Harry Truman.
The Long-Term Fallout
Milley eventually retired in September 2023, but the drama didn't end there. In his farewell speech, he made a very pointed comment: "We don't take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator." He didn't name names, but everyone knew who he was talking about.
Fast forward to early 2025 and 2026, and the "Milley files" are still causing headaches. There have been investigations into his conduct, specifically regarding his phone calls to Chinese generals during the end of the Trump administration. His security detail was even pulled by the Pentagon under new leadership. It’s clear that the General Mark Milley resignation letter wasn't just a moment in time—it was the start of a massive debate about where the military's loyalty truly lies.
Actionable Insights: Lessons from the Milley Saga
If you’re trying to make sense of the constitutional crisis that almost was, here is what you should keep in mind:
- Understand the Oath: Every member of the U.S. military swears an oath to the Constitution, not a person. This is a unique feature of the American system designed to prevent military coups.
- The Power of the "Unsent Letter": Writing out your frustrations (the "Lincoln method") can provide clarity, even if you don't hit send. For Milley, it helped him define his boundaries before he went back into the room.
- Institutional Memory Matters: Milley’s obsession with the "World Order of 1945" shows how much military leaders are shaped by history. If you want to understand the Pentagon, you have to understand the ghosts they are still fighting.
- Civilian Control is Fragile: The Milley story proves that the line between "advising" and "resisting" is incredibly thin. When the system is stressed, it relies more on the character of individuals than the rules on the page.
If you want to understand the full context of these events, you should look into the Lafayette Square reports and the various books written by administration insiders. They show a government that was basically operating in a state of internal siege for months.
The General Mark Milley resignation letter remains a "what if" of history. If he had sent it on June 8, 2020, the 2020 election might have looked very different. Instead, it serves as a roadmap of the internal conflict that defined the end of an era. Keep an eye on the ongoing Inspector General reviews, as they will likely determine if Milley’s "internal fight" was a heroic defense of the law or a violation of the very chain of command he was sworn to uphold.