We got it wrong: The real crisis in the U.S. military

Thanks to Trump’s Friday night purge, the relationship between the military and the nation has been fundamentally altered

By Mara Karlin and Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Paula Thornhill

We’ve written for years about civil-military relations and raised concern about potential crises in the delicate American system of civilian control. The crisis has occurred, but it didn’t ride in as a general on horseback launching a military coup. Instead, it came in the form of a Friday night bureaucratic massacre when the commander in chief fired—for no apparent cause— the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of Naval Operations, and the vice chief of staff of the Air Force. Because President Donald Trump did not give a reason for their removal, one can only look at their gender, their race, and their comments on diversity to conclude that was the cause. Less noticed is the similarly historic firing of the senior lawyers in the U.S. military, known as the Judge Advocate General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. We’re now in a civil-military crisis, but it is a very different one than we expected.

In a democracy, the trust between the military and the nation it serves is inviolate. Military members must have faith in the civilian leadership’s ability to develop and use the institution responsibly. When the political leaders fire, for no apparent cause, senior leaders and, as important, the lawyers who embody the protection of the military members under the law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the relationship between the military and the nation has been fundamentally altered.
To be sure, presidents and secretaries of defense have fired senior military leaders throughout history. From exercising poor judgement with the press to obstinately ignoring civilian priorities, generals and admirals have been removed from their positions by civilian leaders, who have the prerogative to do so. However, there are no examples of firings at this level without any reason or evident failure to perform. The military is now in uncharted territory. And so is the nation.

First, there is the question of loyalty. At every level, officers will have to determine if they are being assessed for their competence or their loyalty. That will undermine unit cohesion in a very coercive way as members start to question personal or partisan motives rather than focusing on building their unit’s competence and unity.

Second, the question of loyalty produces institutional instability as military members try to understand the new norms of behavior. With the most turbulent global security environment in decades, this uncertainty will disorient the military and distract it from tackling threats like China.

Third, the removal of senior military lawyers from across the Department of Defense calls into question the willingness to follow the rule of law. That undermines good order and discipline, the enforcement of standards, and adherence to the UCMJ. In the military, specialized law exists to protect both the institution and the individual responsible for wielding violent means on behalf of the nation. The gratuitous firing of all three senior lawyers sends a chilling message about the precariousness of what protection under the law now means. Finally, although the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the principal military adviser to the commander in chief, he is also, de facto, the senior ranking military leader. To replace him with a national guardsman out of retirement confuses this position— and the roles of the national guard and the active-duty force, which runs the danger of diminishing both. Though Trump’s new nominee for this position has a storied career, he has not filled any of the positions in which a chairman is required to have held. Indeed, his selection only makes sense in the context of a decision by the president to federalize the national guard to militarize anti-migrant programs. That would represent a new purpose for the military and ultimately, a renegotiation of the relationship between the military and the American public.

Civilian leaders have often been given a pass, but they have broken trust with the institution by the events over the weekend. In one single night, Trump redefined civil-military relations. In announcing these firings, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared, “We are putting in place new leadership that will focus our military on its core mission of deterring, fighting and winning wars.” He is sorely mistaken. Instead, he is breaking the trust that underpins the all-volunteer force. The closest experience that America has with a broken military is post-Vietnam War. We are perilously close to some version of that.

We were wrong: America’s military is now in crisis. If Congress does not step in to ensure the military remains an institution of the nation and not an individual, then those who have taken the oath to sacrifice their lives for our country may instead find themselves subject to the whims of the very individual who broke the bonds of trust.

Mara Karlin served in the Pentagon under six secretaries of defense across Democratic and Republican administrations. As U.S. assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans, and capabilities from 2021 to 2023, she led the 2022 National Defense Strategy. She is the author of “Building Militaries in Fragile States: Challenges for the United States” and “The Inheritance: America’s Military After Two Decades of War.” Paula Thornhill is a retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general who worked for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She is the author of “Demystifying the American Military: Institutions, Evolutions, and Challenges since 1789.” They are both professors at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

---