The Dispute Index

Tom Nichols

Portrait of Tom Nichols

Tom Nichols is a political writer associated with The Atlantic on national security and democracy.

X (opens in a new tab)

What we have documented

We have documented 4 statements by Tom Nichols, in 4 cases. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.

Case updates

Want the next important update?

Follow "Should Pete Hegseth livestream Nidal Hasan's execution?" and get an email when an important development changes the record.

Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.

Statements by Tom Nichols

Portrait of Tom Nichols

Tom Nichols

Role at the time: Atlantic staff writer and political commentator

Condemned

Statement summary

Nichols condemns staging the execution as a public spectacle. He says that objection applies regardless of a person's position on the death penalty.

“But either way, the death penalty staged as a public spectacle is an abomination and stains us all.”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Tom Nichols on public viewing of Hasan's execution · Tom NicholsOriginal post 2108287191445111106, author text beginning I oppose the death penalty, but I didn't always feel that way. I understand the people who support it - b.
Why we used this label

The case asks whether Pete Hegseth should livestream Nidal Hasan's execution; it concerns the broadcast proposal, not Hasan's conviction or capital punishment. Nichols says "the death penalty staged as a public spectacle is an abomination and stains us all". That opposes the broadcast, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it loses because he says the objection holds whatever one thinks of the death penalty.

Read statementFull case: Should Pete Hegseth livestream Nidal Hasan's execution?
Portrait of Tom Nichols

Tom Nichols

Role at the time: National-security writer, retired professor, and former Naval War College and Harvard Extension School instructor, on his X account

Condemned

Response to this claim

The Pentagon’s presentation of Jake and Logan Paul as speakers reflected unserious institutional judgment.

“The Iranians are terrified”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Tom Nichols response to the Pentagon’s Paul brothers videoX post ID 2101731472113557522, quoting the Defense Department video
Why we used this label

On the Pentagon’s decision to host and publicly showcase the brothers addressing service members, Nichols’s sarcastic remark implies the opposite of what it states: that no adversary would be intimidated by the display, mocking it as an unserious show of strength. That is a negative judgment of the department’s choice, in the same register as Kinzinger's and DeFranco's brief mocking replies to the same video.

Read statementFull case: Was the Pentagon right to host Jake and Logan Paul and have them address service members?
Portrait of Tom Nichols

Tom Nichols

Role at the time: National-security writer and former Naval War College professor, on social media

Challenged the characterization

Statement summary

Responding on social media to Hugh Hewitt's post calling the agreement a "very big deal," Tom Nichols wrote, "This is, in fact, not a big deal," adding that it is "no different from the situation we've always had, except our allies now think we're led by a lunatic."

“This is, in fact, not a big deal. no different from the situation we've always had, except our allies now think we're led by a lunatic.”
Open source (opens in a new tab)MAGA hails Trump's deal with Greenland – but is it any different from what the US already had? (The Independent)Paragraphs quoting Hugh Hewitt and Tom Nichols
Why we used this label

Relative to Trump's "permanent control" description of the announced U.S.-Denmark-Greenland security agreement, Nichols disputes that the agreement represents a significant change from the pre-existing arrangement, directly rejecting Hewitt's and Trump's characterization of it as a major breakthrough, without condemning the agreement's substance itself.

Read statementFull case: Trump’s “permanent control” description of the announced U.S.-Denmark-Greenland security agreement
Portrait of Tom Nichols

Tom Nichols

Role at the time: Staff writer, The Atlantic

Condemned

Statement summary

Tom Nichols sarcastically said the selection of fit, well-groomed troops for the speech audience would "crush the Iranians."

“Well, that'll crush the Iranians”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Tom Nichols on X: "Well, that'll crush the Iranians"
Why we used this label

Nichols's sarcastic reply -- that seating physically fit, well-groomed troops in the audience will "crush the Iranians" -- mocks the idea that the selection criteria have any bearing on military readiness or deterrence, expressing clear disapproval of the practice as vain and substance-free.

Read statementFull case: Were the Pentagon's Fitness and Grooming Requirements for Hegseth's Speech Appropriate?

A participant is a subject of the case. A speaker has a statement documented in it. A commentator has an opinion or editorial documented in it.

Topics in this coverage