Increasing Oversight of the Relief of Military Leaders

Since taking office, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has engaged in an increased politicization of the Defense Department. One of the most high profile ways has been the abrupt removal of senior military leaders with minimal explanation, leaving the public to surmise justification through political discourse and anonymous sources. Without any kind of public justification, we are left to assume that these senior leaders — uniformed officers at the top of their careers — are being relieved of duty for political reasons. These removals have real impact on the effectiveness of the DOD. Rather than accepting a demotion in position and possibly rank, most of the relieved senior officers chose to retire, leaving potentially significant gaps in leadership that have repercussions across the force.

Congress has minimal statutory or legally established recourse for exercising oversight of these personnel decisions — their role is currently an advisory one, ending after the Senate confirmation process for high-level military positions. With minimal avenues to hold Hegseth accountable for the removal of officers, members of Congress are left imploring him for answers during hearings, attempting to demand answers and justification. In turn, Hegseth has responded with predictable talking points and no real answers. Congress needs to implement new tools for oversight of the relief of senior officers so they can check the abuses of power exercised by the secretary of defense.

Prior to Hegseth’s appointment, a conservative group circulated a list, addressed to Hegseth, of “woke ideologues” within the ranks of senior officers that they hoped he would remove once confirmed as secretary. Their recommendations were all grounded in political issues. In one instance, they said an officer should be removed because he “vocally discusses and supports the DEI agenda,” citing a quote in which the officer said, “we’re trying to eliminate the barriers, open the doors and make sure that we can have the best most capable force that our nation can provide” as their evidence. While Hegseth made no explicit public acknowledgement of the list, he has removed multiple senior leaders who he claimed benefited from a system of DEI and “wokeism,” saying they needed to be removed in order to change the system. He cited no viable performance reasons. This, in line with his continued rhetoric about removing “woke” and DEI from the military, suggests he is removing capable military leaders for political theater rather than actual performance concerns.

Further indication of political motivation for Hegseth’s moves to relieve top military officials of duty is his September 30 speech, during which he assembled virtually every general and admiral in command across the entire military. In an auditorium at Marine Corps Base Quantico, he told them to get with his new agenda for the department or resign. At that same gathering, the president also told the assembled officers that, if they disagreed with him, they were free to leave the room, but “there goes your rank, there goes your future.” The speeches served to intimidate the assembled leaders, threatening their rank and positions if they did not comply with the new vision of a politicized Department of Defense.

The actions the secretary and president are taking that are politicizing the military run counter to the original intent for the U.S. military. Since our nation’s inception, there was concern that a standing army would be at risk of becoming a political entity, used to intimidate or suppress political opposition. Because of this, some founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, favored a militia over a standing military. In an effort to assuage concerns, the founders set up norms and expectations that the military would remain an apolitical body, regardless of what party held the executive. Numerous actions by today’s Department of Defense run counter to these norms, with the purge of generals and admirals being the most blatant.

In addition to creating a military that can be forced to execute political actions, these purges also come at a cost to military readiness. The removed individuals had, on average, served for over 30 years and had careers that included combat, joint operations, extensive military education, and undeniably valuable experience. Moreover, when one general turns over a position to another, there are usually weeks, if not months, of transition and preparation to ensure continuity of command. While Hegseth touts increased recruitment during his tenure, one cannot effectively staff a military with new-joins. Additionally, when we consider our relationships with partners and allies, senior military leaders are the primary touchpoints in those situations, and removing them unceremoniously, with no time for a transition or introduction to the next, could cause issues when working in tandem with coalition forces abroad. Experienced leaders are necessary, and the current rate at which Hegseth is removing them from positions — typically with no clear succession plan or replacement lined up — creates risks that could have major implications to national security.

Finally, these removals are a bipartisan concern. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have raised the issue of these removals in numerous hearings, expressing many of the same concerns outlined here. It is notable that, in a time of harsh division along party lines, congressional members of both parties are coming together to challenge the administration’s decisions on this issue. It shows just how concerning Hegseth’s reliefs are, and how detrimental they may be to our military.

To address this, Congress needs to take steps to establish statutory mechanisms they can use to prevent the politicization of the military now and by future secretaries of either party. Although the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and, by delegation, the secretary of defense have the final authority to appoint and relieve military officers, the Senate is tasked with acting in an advisory capacity. It’s in this capacity that Congress should engage in oversight of the relief of three- and four-star general and flag officers (otherwise referred to by law as “positions of importance and responsibility”), including investigating the reliefs that the current secretary of defense has authorized and not provided adequate justification for.

There are specific changes that can be made to Title10, the laws that govern the statutory requirements of the military:

• Amend 10 U.S.C. Section 601, which governs positions of importance and responsibility, to include explicit requirements for formal congressional notification within 24 hours of the relief of an officer occupying such position.
• Amend 10 U.S.C. Section 601 to require the DOD to show their work following the relief of an officer occupying a position of importance and responsibility by submitting a full investigative report to the Senate Armed Services Committee within 30 days of the relief. That report, at a minimum, must include
  • a statement from either the secretary of defense or the appropriate service secretary outlining their justification for the relief,
  • the full text of a DOD command investigation into the relief of said officer, and
  • an optional statement from the relieved officer on the subject of their relief.

These provisions will augment Congress’s ability to conduct investigations and hold hearings, something they should do now for every relief performed without justification from Hegseth’s department.

POGO has, in the past, advocated for a reduction in the number of general and flag officers in the military. The concern about general-officer bloat stems from the fact that an overly large officer corps can be a waste of money and can, at times, lead to overcomplication in military organization. However, any significant reduction in force should be conducted systematically and with appropriate oversight from Congress to ensure minimal impacts to military readiness and national security. Hegseth’s political purge is not the means to achieve that end. It is, instead, politicizing the military in a way that runs counter to the foundational principles of our country. Congress can and should act quickly to establish tools for increased oversight, ensuring that our military remains apolitical and in service to the American people.