As Trump molds military leadership, do politics outrank merit?
When President Donald Trump last month fired six top U.S. military leaders, including a Black man and the United States’ only female four-star officer, he didn’t give a reason.
But it appeared to mark the fulfillment of plans long outlined by Trump administration officials to replace what they called “woke” officers with those who, in the parlance of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, prioritize the lethality of the armed forces.
Among critics, however, the “Friday night massacre,” as Democrats called the firings, fueled concern that the president’s goal is not seeking out martial merit but rather finding officers who pass a loyalty test of sorts.
Mr. Trump likes telling a story about how his new pick for America’s top military leader, retired Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin’” Caine, told the president he “loved” him and would “kill for” him, and then donned a red MAGA hat when they first met in Iraq in 2018.
Mr. Caine’s close colleagues dispute that story – wearing a cap with a political message while in uniform during a deployment is a violation of military codes.
Hats aside, a military that’s obedient to its civilian commander-in-chief is a cornerstone of U.S. democracy. Even the president’s critics are quick to say that he has the right to choose his subordinates.
Yet the mass dismissal of the armed services’ top echelons raises “troubling questions about the administration’s desire to politicize the military and to remove legal constraints on the President’s power,” five former secretaries of defense wrote in a letter to Congress last month. “Those currently serving may grow cautious of speaking truth to power, or they could erode good order and discipline by taking political actions in uniform.”
The defense secretaries’ letter notes that Alexander Hamilton pressed military officers to insert themselves into domestic politics hoping that the Continental Army’s grievances could help pressure states into supporting a stronger national government.
George Washington warned him against it: “The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with,” he said.
Conservatives who argue that President Joe Biden politicized the military by focusing on climate change and by advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion measures call these concerns, on the heels of Mr. Trump’s firings, sour grapes.
As these latest Trump administration moves play out, they will be recorded in America’s history books, already well stocked with tales of U.S. presidents who have let go of commanders for political reasons – or kept others at their political peril.
These were big news stories in their day, followed closely by those who worried, as now, that politicizing the military poses considerable risks to military morale, strategic readiness, and democratic safeguards.
A scheming general and ties to Jefferson, Madison
A Revolutionary War veteran back when the new republic was still fragile, Brig. Gen. James Wilkinson was “renowned for never having won a battle or lost a court-martial,” as historian Robert Leckie put it.
Wilkinson was also the colonial army’s top officer, one of a number of generals who’d ascended the military ranks through family ties, wealth, and political savvy. “His rise,” Mr. Leckie writes, “disgusted every decent officer in the service.”
Wilkinson also almost helped America lose the West. When Aaron Burr was accused in 1807 of hatching a traitorous plot to carve out an independent nation from western states and the Louisiana Territory, it was discovered that he’d sought support from Wilkinson – later found to be on Spain’s payroll as a secret agent.
At the same time as he was the army’s senior officer, Wilkinson was also governor of Louisiana and, as such, arrested a number of people – and their lawyers – whom he thought could link him to Burr.
Widely believed to be complicit in Burr’s alleged plotting, Wilkinson escaped prosecution by throwing Burr under the bus in a letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson. For all this, he was court-martialed but later acquitted. Historians speculate that Wilkinson’s political connections kept President James Madison from pursuing more serious treason charges against him.
Wilkinson went on to be one of the leading generals infamously defeated in Madison’s failed U.S. invasion of Canada during the War of 1812, which, had it succeeded, could have permanently changed the shape of America. Wilkinson was court-martialed again for misconduct, but he was once more acquitted.
“In all our history,” Theodore Roosevelt wrote, “there has been no more despicable character.”
MacArthur, Truman, a public dispute, and a “gutted” Army
More than a century later, Gen. Douglas MacArthur – counter to policies to protect civilian control of the military – publicly protested President Harry Truman’s foreign policy plans: General MacArthur was, in short, convinced that China posed a significant strategic threat to America, while President Truman was more concerned about Russia’s designs on Europe.
After many patient warnings, President Truman relieved him of command and was promptly thrust into a fight for his political life. Republicans accused the president of being soft on communism. Sen. Joseph McCarthy called Mr. Truman – and all Democrats – traitors.
Ultimately, Mr. MacArthur was replaced by Lt. Gen. Matthew Ridgway, who later became the U.S. Army’s top officer. That’s when he clashed with President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whom he had replaced as supreme allied commander of Europe following their service in World War II.
President Eisenhower believed nuclear weapons were a better investment than a large ground force. Shrinking the Army was necessary to keep the economy robust so America could make that investment, he said.
Mr. Ridgway argued publicly that the ability of nuclear weapons to wipe out the world meant that rational leaders were far more likely to use conventional forces in armed conflict. Reducing them would leave America vulnerable.
Many generals agreed with Mr. Ridgway, and, tired of their dissent, President Eisenhower increasingly isolated himself from their advice. He allowed the general to finish out his two-year term, but he did not invite him back for another, effectively firing him.
While the president’s strategy played a role in winning the Cold War, an analysis from West Point’s Modern War Institute argues that Mr. Ridgway was right: In the years to come, “a gutted and largely demoralized Army would reveal itself incapable” of winning the Vietnam War.
General ousted after publicly doubting Carter
Other fundamental disagreements about America’s strategic direction have played out in the public spotlight, with military officers openly calling into question – and subverting – the decisions of civilian leaders.
When President Jimmy Carter planned to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea, believing it would encourage South Korea to rely more on its own armed forces, the top commander in the region, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, publicly questioned the president’s decision.
It could lead to another North Korean invasion, he said. President Carter quickly relieved Mr. Singlaub of his post.
A Silver Star recipient who had trained resistance fighters in German-occupied France, Mr. Singlaub was reassigned to another military job. He later publicly criticized President Carter again for, among other things, giving up control of the Panama Canal. He was then ordered to the Department of Defense, which announced his retirement the following day.
Later, Mr. Singlaub became a major fundraiser for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, who were fighting that Central American country’s leftist government. He testified in 1987 congressional hearings on the Reagan administration’s secret plan to sell arms to Iran, with proceeds diverted to the rebels.
It was an end-run around a congressional ban on aid to the Contras. Mr. Singlaub explained that his own visible role helped divert attention away from the program.
Conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater sent a note to CIA Director William Casey after Congress learned of the Nicaragua affair from a Wall Street Journal investigative article.
President Ronald Reagan “has asked us to back his foreign policy,” he wrote. “Bill, how can we back his foreign policy when we don’t know what the hell he is doing?”
The investigation – which found that the president’s national security adviser, Adm. John Poindexter, and his assistant Lt. Col. Oliver North had destroyed thousands of documents rather than hand them over – reaffirmed the essential role Congress plays in the oversight of the executive branch.
Administration defends moves. Could it be “undermining” military?
Historically, the removal of generals by their president has been for isolated instances of politicization, and usually because of public actions of the commander.
In recent history, Adm. William Fallon resigned as a top U.S. commander after an article portrayed him as opposing President George W. Bush’s Iran policies.
Two years later, President Barack Obama relieved Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan after he was quoted making disparaging comments about his civilian leaders, including then-Vice President Biden.
For this reason, President Trump’s firing of six top military leaders upon taking office is concerning, says Richard Kohn, former chief historian of the Air Force and now professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The administration has pointed to Gen. George Marshall’s 1940 “plucking board” as historical precedent, convened to cull older colonels and generals nearing retirement. General Marshall wanted to raise up officers more prepared for the rigors of the approaching world war.
The Trump administration has not given an official rationale for its firings. In a Truth Social post announcing that he was letting go Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr., the second Black man to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Trump thanked him for his service, calling him a “fine gentleman and an outstanding leader.”
But the underlying reason for his dismissal, many experts have suggested, was General Brown’s public comments about challenges of being a Black man in the U.S. armed forces. “It’s very clear that the Republican Party has become less supportive of the military for what they consider to be woke-ism,” says Professor Kohn. “And that itself is a major source of politicization.”
This politicization often can’t help but be absorbed by military officers who want to rise to the top of a competitive field, potentially affecting “their duty to tell their bosses what they need to hear – rather than what they think they want to hear,” he adds.
“And that to me is the threat, really: undermining the efficiency, effectiveness, and excellence of the officer corps from the very top.”
