The Peril of a Politicized Pentagon

(SeaPRwire) –   For nearly 14 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), a major component of my role has involved hearing from and interrogating generals and admirals on all military matters, from weapons development to the condition of the DIB (the Pentagon’s term for the Defense Industrial Base), and every topic in between.

However, before we reach those questions, every one of these senior officers must undergo a confirmation process akin to that for judges and cabinet officials—involving committee hearings, votes, and full Senate approval. A key element of this process is a set of standard questions posed to each nominee at the start of the initial Committee hearing. The most crucial question is, “Do you agree to provide your personal views when asked by this committee, even if those views conflict with the current administration?” The response is invariably “yes.”

For the majority of those 14 years, the officers appearing before us have honored that pledge. While they consistently sought to steer clear of politics and avoided deliberately opposing the Commander-in-Chief, they were typically candid in expressing their opinions.

That is no longer the case.

Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth removed Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and two other generals. Furthermore, across all four military branches, Hegseth has stalled the promotions of over a dozen senior officers whose sole apparent transgression is being Black or female. These actions are troubling on their own, but the trend indicates a wider issue.

In the past half-year, I have observed a slight change in the responses the SASC receives on topics where a gap may exist between our witnesses’ personal or professional judgments and the stance of the Trump Administration. It is less about any single answer and more a perceptible hesitation to venture into specific subjects and provide frank responses that could oppose the Administration’s position. Lately, I sense our military witnesses are practically glancing over their shoulders before delivering their meticulously worded replies.

The issue is clear: if we cannot obtain the most accurate information and counsel from top military leaders, we cannot make sound decisions regarding defense budgets and policy.

Yet more profoundly, I believe what we are witnessing signals a more serious and perilous trend—a purposeful effort to transform our professional and resolutely non-political military into a force more loyal to the President than to the Constitution.

The nation’s Founders cautioned about the risks of a permanent army in a democratic republic and its possible abuse in domestic matters. Notably, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, in enumerating the new government’s powers, stated one power was “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” No other constitutional power carries such a time restriction, a fact that merits serious reflection.

Since the Vietnam War, we have maintained a standing (all-volunteer) army, but its intrinsic risks have been lessened by a robust tradition of a non-political military, led by officers who recognize their oath is to the Constitution—not to a political party, not to a President, and not to a specific Secretary of Defense (there is no Secretary of War).

However, it appears to me this administration has initiated a deliberate campaign to intimidate the present officer corps and erode this principle through an unprecedented series of dismissals and blocked promotions for qualified, experienced officers who demonstrate the independence mandated by the Constitution. This is in addition to the attempted court-martial of a retired officer—my colleague Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona—who dared to state the obvious principle that soldiers must not obey illegal orders.

Historically, America has been shielded from the serious threat of political militarization by the Constitution itself, by statutes banning military involvement in domestic matters (including one that expressly forbids the military at polling sites), and by the apolitical tradition of the officer corps.

Yet these dismissals and the signal they send, combined with the establishment of National Guard “Quick Reaction Forces” nationwide, the significant expansion of ICE, and the routine deployment of troops on the streets of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, all indicate a single possibility—the potential enforcement of a form of martial law domestically and, most alarmingly, during the upcoming fall elections.

The time has come for those of us tasked with the duty “to raise and support armies” (I address my fellow U.S. Senators) to recognize what is occurring and, alongside our Constitutionally loyal officers, act to prevent it.