The dangers of politicizing military leadership

History is littered with regimes that prioritized loyalty over skill.

By Brian O’Neill

President Donald Trump's abrupt dismissal of Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff marks a deeply troubling shift in the relationship between civilian leadership and the military establishment. This action, paired with the firings of Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Gen. James Slife, the vice chief of the Air Force, constitutes a sweeping purge of the nation’s top military leadership. At best, this signals a move to consolidate control over the Pentagon. At worst, it represents a wholesale politicization of military leadership unprecedented in modern American history.

Gen. Brown, a respected officer with more than four decades of service, was known for his focus on readiness, modernization, and inclusivity. Adm. Franchetti, the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been derided by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as a "DEI hire," trivializing decades of operational experience. Firing leaders of such caliber under a pretext of returning to "warfighting focus" raises serious concerns about politically motivated leadership changes that risk undermining the apolitical nature of the military. Though some might avoid the term "purge" because of its harsh implications, the scale and targeted nature of these removals cannot be ignored.

Trump’s selection of Lt. Gen. Dan Caine to replace Brown raises additional concerns. Caine is not a four-star general and is retired, and thus circumvented typical nomination procedures requiring selections from active combatant commands. The decision sends a clear message: personal loyalty to Trump now supersedes the institutional norms governing military appointments.

Federal law allows presidential waivers for military appointments, but those waivers were designed for extraordinary circumstances, not to fulfill a leader's preference for pliant subordinates. Though some argue that such waivers can be justified when selecting a retired general with exceptional qualifications—as seen in debates over past appointments—the concern here lies not in Caine’s military background but in the apparent prioritization of loyalty over merit. Trump's characterization of Caine as someone who could finish campaigns in a week evokes cinematic bravado rather than the thoughtful deliberation typically expected in senior military appointments.

There is a profound difference between civilian oversight of the military and personalist control of the armed forces. Civilian oversight ensures accountability. Personalist control rewards fealty. Trump’s actions fall squarely into the latter category.

The implications are staggering. Purging military leadership on ideological grounds undermines the apolitical foundation of the armed forces. The military's function is to defend the Constitution, not to serve as an extension of a president’s political whims. Such actions corrode the chain of command and weaken the professionalism that has long underpinned American military effectiveness.

Trump’s first term provided warning signs. He intervened in high-profile war crimes cases against the Pentagon’s advice, prioritizing loyalty over legality. Those interventions were alarming enough. This new round of dismissals takes that approach further, embedding it into the leadership structure.

Brown’s removal, despite his efforts to focus on border security operations and strategic competition with China, reveals that operational success is irrelevant if it does not align with Trump’s narrative. Franchetti’s dismissal, meanwhile, sends a chilling signal to women serving in uniform: Your achievements are secondary to your perceived political alignment.

Supporters might argue that Trump is simply asserting civilian authority. But civilian authority is not carte blanche to hollow out leadership for personal preference. There is a fine line between oversight and sabotage.

International repercussions are inevitable. Allies depend on U.S. military stability. Sudden leadership changes undermine confidence in joint operations and long-term strategic commitments.

Adversaries, meanwhile, will interpret this disarray as an opportunity to test American resolve. Tehran and Beijing are not trembling. They are calculating. And what they see is not strength, but a nation distracted by internal political theater, willing to sacrifice military continuity for partisan gains.

What does this mean for service members? Those on the front lines are expected to fight and, if necessary, die for the nation. Yet their leadership is now subject to the whims of a commander-in-chief who reportedly dismissed the fallen as "suckers" and "losers" in the past. Such contempt cannot be papered over by patriotic slogans.

Republican leaders who have championed military integrity now face a test. Remaining silent in the face of these changes—and these are not minor lapses of judgement on Trump’s part—risks complicity. If loyalty to this president is placed above loyalty to country and constitutional principles, the consequences for national security will be profound and enduring.

This is not hyperbole. History is littered with regimes that prioritized loyalty over skill: Stalin’s decimation of his officer corps, Napoleon’s late-stage reliance on sycophants, Nero’s paranoia-driven purges.

The pattern is clear. So are the consequences.

Brian O’Neill, a retired senior executive from the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center, is an instructor on strategic intelligence at Georgia Tech.

---