Three “Lunatics” Supporting the Lunatic-in-Chief

“Is Trump a Lunatic?” is the title of my previous blog post. Bruce Maples, founder of the “Forward Kentucky” website, recently referred to Trump as “the Lunatic-in-Chief.”* This post highlights the “lunacy” (used in the metaphorical sense) of three men closely associated with the POTUS. 

(Pete Hegseth as depicted by Rachel Bitecofer)

Trump delivered an “address to the nation” on December 17. That same day, Maples portrayed the speech as an unhinged, lie-filled, 20‑minute tirade marked by bragging, blame‑shifting toward Biden and the Democrats, and disjointed nonsense.

Andy Curtis is an applied linguist and former president of the TESOL International Association. Back in 2018, he labeled Trump the ‘Lunatic‑in‑Chief.’ Maples cast the December 17 address as yet another performance that fully merited that description. In a 2019 post, Curtis also called Trump the “most famous liar in the world today.”

There are, not surprisingly, many loyalists who support Trump’s prevarication, misleading statements, and gaslighting. This post is a brief look at three “lunatics” who are his main supporters.

Steve Bannon (his given name is Stephen, but he is called Steve in the media and public life), has been closely associated with Trump since 2016.

Bannon (b. 1953) was a close ally of Andrew Breitbart, founder of Breitbart News. After Breitbart’s death in 2012, Bannon became its executive chairman and shaped in into a nationalist, pro‑Trump website. Consequently, Breitbart News came to be known as “the platform for the alt‑right” and was widely seen as “Trump Central” during the 2016 campaign.

After breaking with Trump in early 2018, Bannon started his “War Room” podcasts early in 2019, releasing new episodes five or six times a week. His podcast on March 19, 2026, was labeled as #5227. Bannon’s War Room is often depicted as “ultra-conservative” or “hyper-partisan right,” and it is widely seen as “a hub for extreme MAGA rhetoric.”

Currently, Bannon is clearly one of the “lunatics” actively supporting the Lunatic-in-Chief.

Stephen Miller (although he has the same given name as Bannon, he goes by the full name, never by Steve) has also long been a Trump supporter. Miller (b. 1985) is said to have felt an intense personal connection upon Trump’s June 2015 candidacy announcement, viewing ‘it as aligning perfectly with his longstanding anti-immigration views. At Bannon’s and Jared Kushner’s urging, in 2016 Miller joined Trump’s campaign full-time as a senior policy advisor, writing Trump’s early speeches and embedding nationalist rhetoric like “radical Islam.” His loyalty proved unwavering through Trump’s first term and his 2024 campaign.

Since January 2025, Miller has served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in President Trump’s administration. That position gives him broad oversight of immigration enforcement, homeland security, and domestic policy execution, including mass deportations and executive orders.

Without question, Miller is one of the three main “lunatics” currently supporting the President.

Pete Hegseth (although his given name is Peter, he universally goes by Pete) assumed his first paid federal government role in Trump’s second term, when he nominated Hegseth for secretary of defense in November 2024. The Senate confirmed him after a tie-breaking vote by VP Vance, and he was sworn in on January 25, 2025.

Hegseth (b. 1980) is clearly one of the most important and most dangerous men in the U.S. today. As the Secretary of Defense/War, he is the official most responsible for launching/conducting the current “war” against Iran. As the oft-quoted anonymous saying puts it, “The most dangerous people are those who commit violence believing they are doing God’s will."

As is widely known, Hegseth is a conservative evangelical Christian who embraces a literal interpretation of what the Book of Revelation says about Armageddon and the Rapture. His current involvement in the war on Iran seems clearly to be based on his fundamentalistic Christian beliefs.**

Hegseth has said he will practice “no quarter” in Iran, which means he will refuse to spare enemy lives or take prisoners but will execute all who surrender or are captured. Supposedly, that is legitimate since, in his eyes, all Muslims are going to “fry when they die” (my words, not his) anyway.

Robert Reich’s March 16 Substack post was titled Trump’s Stupidest Cabinet Member, and he said Hegseth, this third of Trump’s “lunatic” enablers, is “a clear winner.”

With the rampant presence and power of these three “lunatics,” I repeat what I said at the end of my previous post: Heaven help us!

_____

  * Following his unsuccessful run for Louisville Metro Council in 2014 as a Democrat and frustrated by weak progressive voices in those elections, Maples founded Forward Kentucky in 2015.

** For those not familiar with the common conservative evangelical view of the end times, see the following articles: “Evangelicalism’s Twin Engines of Destruction: The Theological Innovation Sanctifying Trump’s War in Iran,” “Armageddon is not a strategy for peace in Iran,” and “The Pentagon’s Armageddon Problem,” Rachel Bitecofer’s March 12^th Substack post. (The image at the top of this post was taken from the latter.)

Remembering Martin of Tours (and Pete Hegseth)

Perhaps many of you don’t remember much (or anything) about Martin of Tours. But he is a man worth recalling, and his commitment to non-violence is commendable for people of all ages to consider and to emulate. 

Icon by Kreg Yingst

Martin of Tours was born around 316 A.D. in what today we call central Europe. He was the son of a Roman military officer. Like his father, he was compelled to serve in the Roman army. Even though a soldier, Martin was drawn to the Christian faith, still relatively new and sometimes suspect within the Roman Empire.

When he was still under 20 years of age, he encountered a poor, shivering beggar on a bitterly cold winter day. Moved by compassion but having nothing else to offer, Martin cut his heavy military cloak in half with his sword and gave one part to the beggar, keeping the other for himself.​

That night, Martin had a vision or dream in which Jesus appeared to him wearing the half of the cloak he had given away. Jesus said to the angels around him, “Martin has clothed me with this garment.” This story may have been embellished with dramatic details, but it captures the essence of Martin’s compassionate character.

This vision deeply affected the young man, leading him to be baptized soon afterward. For two decades or so, however, he continued to be a Roman soldier. But when he was about 40, Martin finally decided he could no longer remain a military man.

According to some sources he had another dream or vision which convinced him he could no longer be a soldier. Julian, the Roman emperor, prepared a military campaign in which Martin’s unit was expected to participate. But before the campaign began, Martin stepped forward and declared, “I am a soldier of Christ; I cannot fight.”

The emperor interpreted Martin’s words not as a matter of conscience but as cowardice, accusing Martin of seeking to avoid battle. Martin replied that his refusal was based on his Christian faith, not fear. This was the beginning of conscientious objection to warfare, embraced by only a minuscule percentage of Christians in the following centuries

The Waldensians, who began in France late in the 12^th century, is the only Christian group that practiced pacifism/non-violence before the beginning of Anabaptism in 1525. But it was challenging for even them and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), which began in England in the mid-17th century, to maintain that practice.

In the U.S., conscientious objection to military service was not recognized as valid until World War II. (See my May 20, 2017, blog post about conscientious objectors).

Diana Butler Bass is a well-known and respected public theologian. She posts meaningful articles on Substack twice a week. Her November 11 post was the second one this year about Martin. I decided to write about him after reading “The Warrior Ethos,” her September 30 post about Martin (see here).

The latter was largely Bass’s criticism of Pete Hegseth, who from 2001 to 2021 served as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army National Guard. On January 24, Hegseth (b. 1980) was confirmed as a member of the POTUS’s Cabinet. On an official U.S. government website, he is now identified as “the secretary of war.”

In late September, Hegseth called a surprise meeting at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, to deliver a strong speech to several hundred top military generals and admirals about reviving “the warrior spirit” or “warrior ethos” in the U.S. military.

As Bass wrote, “Hegseth is probably the most openly Christian nationalist true believer in the entire Trump administration …. He always brings Jesus to the war party. Because, of course, in the theology of Christian nationalism Jesus is a Warrior.” In contrast, Bass goes on to state,

No early Christian — not a single church leader, pastor, or theologian —
in those first decades after Jesus lived, taught, died, and rose again would have ever considered their God to be a warrior.

Except in the most metaphorical sense of being a warrior for Love.

So, whose example and words do we choose?—those of Martin of Tours or of the current U.S. Secretary of War? For those who are true followers of Jesus, it seems like a “no-brainer.” What do you think?