Trump's purge plan: Reshaping military leadership norms

One of the unwritten rules that has historically governed relations between politicians and the military is mutual respect regardless of political views. The military has remained apolitical irrespective of the White House occupant. The Trump administration plans to abandon this principle, a position signalled for several months by those in his circle.

Trump himself promised during the election campaign to cleanse the military of the so-called "woke generals"—those who, despite being appointed during his presidency, followed the new administration's directives, such as implementing equality in the military and allowing gay service members.

The first victim of the purge was General Mark Milley. The former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman was a member of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council until Tuesday. He was initially appointed as Chairman by Trump himself. However, he subsequently opposed several radical changes the Republican administration wished to implement, which earned the president's ire.

He opposed withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, discussing it during a Senate committee hearing. During the storming of the Capitol, he sent the National Guard to protect key institutions. Along with other chiefs of staff, he issued a statement condemning Trump’s actions and reminding all service members of their duty to support and defend the Constitution and reject extremism.

A year later, Trump suggested that Milley should face the death penalty for conducting secret talks with China. During Trump’s first presidency, this conversation was conducted to calm tensions between the countries. It was carried out with the knowledge and consent of then-Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller.

Just after the presidential election results were announced, 20 colonels, generals, and admirals emerged who had expressed support for diversity and inclusion initiatives within the military. Among them was Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations. She jeopardised her position by supporting the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the armed forces and, notably, because she is... a woman.

When the Senate voted on her nomination, Republicans recognised her knowledge and experience on the one hand, while on the other, they claimed that "President Biden nominated Adm. Franchetti not because she is qualified or competent to do the job, but due to this administration's obsession with diversity and integration," as stated by Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas (who voted against her nomination).

Simultaneously, Senator Tommy Tuberville—a Republican from Alabama—was blocking over 400 military nominations in the Senate in protest against the Department of Defense's policy on abortion. Even their party colleagues, like Senator Dan Sullivan from Alaska and Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa, urged them to step down and not create chaos within the armed forces' operations.

Those nominated at that time are now most threatened with dismissal. The Republican list includes Gen. David Allvin, the Air Force's chief of staff, and Lt. Gen. Christopher Mahoney, the Marine Corps's deputy commander.

Republican Dan Sullivan is a Marine Corps Reserve Colonel and an Afghanistan veteran. He previously emphasised that the most important thing for him was the system's efficient operation, which his party colleagues are obstructing. However, he now supports Pete Hegseth's selection as head of the Pentagon. Hegseth had already announced before the elections that he would fire "every general who carried water for Obama and Biden."

It’s not about competencies or who nominated the officer. The key criterion for dismissing service members will be their views. The Trump team considers as traitors any officer who supported gay and lesbian service, is an advocate for abortion, IVF, or diversity in the military. American commentators note that such actions might dismantle the complex officer nomination system developed over the years.

Appointments to the highest positions in the U.S. military involve a long and complicated process spanning many years, regardless of the current administration. Before an officer is nominated, the Pentagon gathers opinions from other commanders, then presents several candidates to the president, who selects one to submit to the Senate for approval.

Dismissing an officer is much easier. This remains one of the president’s prerogatives, for which he doesn’t require the Senate’s or Pentagon’s consent. However, dismissing the majority of the highest officers and attempting to appoint party-aligned replacements may cause paralysis. Democratic senators, as well as less radical Republicans like Lisa Murkowski, may block political appointments. Just as Tuberville and Marshall did.

This may not only impede the operation of the U.S. military but also create obstacles in international cooperation.