Five Questions with Olivia Troye

Olivia Troye served as Vice President Mike Pence’s Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor and in other leadership and advisory roles at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security until she resigned in June 2020 over concerns about how the administration was handling the Covid pandemic. Since leaving the administration, Troye has become an outspoken critic of Trump and campaigned on behalf of his Democratic rival Kamala Harris in 2024.

From her time in the first Trump administration, Troye is acquainted with others who became critical of the administration, or who, like her, were merely committed to telling the American people the truth and fell out of Trump’s good graces as a result. This week, two of those people, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs, were targeted by Trump with executive orders.

The only thing a president can do in an executive order is order an executive branch agency to take or withhold specified actions. Trump has wielded them in an aggressive way, for instance, in an EO designed to suppress voter participation, directing executive agencies to withhold funding from states that don’t fall in line with his plans. But this use of EOs to target individuals Trump has decided are enemies because they didn’t support his fake narrative of voter fraud when he lost the 2020 elections is entirely new. There is no possible way to justify it as democratic. It is paradigmatic of a president who has set his sights on being a dictator.

There is no one better to help us understand this landscape than Olivia, and I’m delighted to have her as our guest for “Five Questions” tonight!

Olivia graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, the National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs, and the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security. She was raised in El Paso, Texas, and although she resides in and has spent most of her career traveling in and out of Washington, D.C., she still refers to El Paso as home. Olivia has started her own Substack, Olivia of Troye Unfiltered, if you want to stay in touch.

“Five Questions” is a feature for paid subscribers to Civil Discourse. The rest of my posts are available to free subscribers as well. This is my way of thanking people who are able to support my work financially so I can devote more time and resources to it. I value having all of you here.

Joyce: Trump has issued two separate executive orders targeting your former colleagues, Christopher Krebs and Miles Taylor. Help us understand who they are, what roles they played in the first Trump administration, and why each of them ended up running afoul of Trump.

Olivia: Christopher Krebs led the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) during the first Trump Administration. After the 2020 election, Krebs stood up and said the quiet part out loud: that the election was secure and there was no widespread fraud. All he did was do his job, and Trump fired him via a tweet.

Miles Taylor worked at DHS as the chief of staff—he had a front-row seat to some of the most troubling and dangerous ideas being pushed during the first Trump administration. He saw a president who was unfit, erratic, and willing to use the Department of Homeland Security to further his personal agenda. I was witness to many of the policies and endeavors that Taylor expressed concerns about. And when Taylor began to speak out, Trump made him a target.

I served alongside Krebs and Taylor. I was at DHS at the start of the Trump administration and later served in the Vice President’s office. I saw firsthand how hard they worked and how committed they were to public service. They’re not radicals. They’re not partisans. They’re professionals who took their oaths seriously.

Both of these men were Republicans appointed by Trump. But when they put country first and refused to carry out his personal vendettas or lies—they became enemies. Clearly Trump is still holding on to his resentment, and it speaks to his ongoing obsession with the 2020 election.

Joyce: We understand that executive orders are tools presidents can use for compelling action or inaction within the executive branch, but not beyond it, at least not directly. What is Trump doing with each of these orders, and how will they impact Krebs and Taylor?

Olivia: Executive orders are tools meant to guide the executive branch—not to settle political scores. But what Trump is doing here is a dangerous abuse of power. He’s issuing executive orders that single out two former officials—Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor—not because they broke the law, but because they told the truth and wouldn’t bend to his will.

What’s most disturbing is the projection. Trump keeps accusing others of “weaponizing the government,” but this is exactly what that looks like. These orders direct agencies to dig into their records, imply criminality, and call for investigations—based on nothing more than personal grievance.

This kind of move doesn’t just impact Krebs or Taylor. It impacts their families, and potentially their careers, even their friendships. The stress, the potential reputational damage of just being “investigated,” the financial burden of defending yourself—it’s immense. I’ve lived through lawfare from Trump loyalists. It’s exhausting. And it’s meant to be. What they’re facing is an even graver abuse of power, one with potentially lasting consequences for their lives. Knowing that the president of the United States is actively using the power of the federal government to go after you—that’s not governance. That’s intimidation. And if this is what he’s doing out in the open, we have to ask ourselves: what else is happening behind the scenes? What are they planning? Who’s next? That’s what many who are potentially future targets of President Trump’s retribution are wondering. These aren’t isolated incidents–this is part of a broader strategy Trump is enacting.

Joyce: As a former DOJ employee, it’s shocking to me that a president would direct an attorney general to investigate people for what he views as their political opposition to him. He has perhaps dressed it up in the language of law enforcement, but it’s clear this action by Trump is motivated by revenge. It’s even more shocking that an attorney general who received a directive like this wouldn’t rebuke the president for issuing it and refuse to obey, resigning if not fired if it weren’t withdrawn. But of course, that’s not going to happen with Pam Bondi in office. What do you think happens next, and is this dangerous for democracy more broadly in addition to the people Trump has singled out?

Olivia: It’s deeply dangerous—both for our democracy and for every individual he targets. A president weaponizing the Department of Justice to punish those he sees as political enemies is the hallmark of an authoritarian regime. I worked in government. I know how serious it is when the machinery of federal law enforcement is turned inward—not to serve the country, but to serve one man’s grievances.

Pam Bondi won’t push back. She was selected precisely because she won’t. That’s the point. Trump has surrounded himself with loyalists, not rule-of-law leaders. And when the top law enforcement official refuses to draw a line, where are the checks within the system?

So what happens next? I worry we’ll see more of this—additional executive orders, expanded “investigations,” and increasingly chilling attempts to silence truth-tellers. And the broader danger is that we normalize it. That Americans become numb to the erosion of accountability. This isn’t just about Chris Krebs or Miles Taylor. It’s about whether anyone who disagrees with Trump or does something that is seen as noncompliant with his demands is safe from state retaliation. This pattern—targeting political opponents with the justice system—is a signature of deteriorating democratic systems worldwide. It's what we've historically condemned in other nations while claiming American exceptionalism.

Joyce: Trump has used the word “treason” in discussing these executive orders. What are the implications of his framing the issue this way, and how does it impact your level of concern about what’s happening here?

Olivia: When the President invokes “treason” against his critics, he’s not just using harsh rhetoric—he’s wielding a loaded term with serious constitutional significance. It reframes honest dissent as an act of betrayal against the nation itself. The consequences go far beyond legal jeopardy—they invite public targeting, harassment, and even potential violence. This is a calculated attempt to silence legitimate criticism. By leveling such a grave accusation against these two individuals, Trump is sending a broader message—meant to instill fear not just across society, but within the government itself. It’s about making an example of them to keep others quiet.

When leaders label critics as traitors, they aren't operating within democratic norms—they're following the authoritarian playbook. This is Putin's language, not America's. Our system depends on debate, dissent, and whistleblowers holding our government accountable.

Trump has crossed a critical line by coupling accusations of treason with formal executive orders. This isn't just rhetoric anymore—it's state retaliation against critics, dressed in the language of national betrayal. The full weight of federal authority is now being deployed against those whose only offense was upholding their oath to the Constitution rather than pledging personal loyalty.

Joyce: Earlier this week, you posted on Threads that “Not one reporter asked about the Executive Orders targeting Chris Krebs & Miles Taylor during today’s Cabinet press conference. Not one. A sitting president abusing & using the power of DOJ to punish former officials who spoke out against him? That’s the stuff of banana republics. I waited. And waited. But the question never came. Why? Has the fear they want to instill already taken hold?” How concerned are you that Trump has created a culture where the last guardrails, including the press and lawyers, are becoming afraid to check him?

Olivia: That silence shook me. I watched that Cabinet press conference and waited for someone—anyone—to ask the question. But no one did. Not one. And that felt like a warning sign. Because if the press—the very people whose job it is to speak truth to power—are already hesitating to challenge him, then the fear he wants to instill may already be working.

When lawyers start giving in to Trump's demands, when reporters pull punches, when public servants look the other way out of fear of being the next target—that's when the system of checks and balances begins to collapse. These institutions are our last line of defense against presidential abuse.

If I had been in that press gaggle during the meeting, my questions would've gone straight to Attorney General Pam Bondi: What happened to the statements you made under oath during your confirmation hearing? You stated you would not politicize the Justice Department—that you wouldn't use it to target people based on their politics. So what's your response to these two executive orders targeting Republican appointed national security officials from the first Trump Administration?

I’ve lived through this once before. I’ve seen how intimidation works inside that administration. I've seen capable officials shrink from speaking uncomfortable truths out of fear of retribution. And I know how much courage it takes to speak out. But I also know this: if we shrink back now, there may soon be nothing left to protect. These executive orders aren't abstract political theater—they're the retribution Trump promised. He meant every word. Today it's Krebs and Taylor, tomorrow it could be you, me, or anyone who dares criticize him. This calculated intimidation strategy aims to break our will—they want to make examples of the truth-tellers so the rest of us fall in line—we can’t let that work. If we normalize this, we lose more than our rights—we lose the courage to defend them. I, for one, will not be silenced. I will be here advocating for them and for others.

In a week where so much happened that it was impossible to focus on all of the important developments, let alone everything, the story of Trump’s revenge orders seemed too important to ignore. I’m grateful to Olivia for her courage and for helping us understand this issue at both a personal level and in the larger context of what it means for democracy. As with the deportation cases we’ve been studying this week, where this starts is not where this ends. Trump may have started with these orders pointed at two individuals, part of the cohort of revenge executive orders that have targeted law firms and others. But it will not end here.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Share