Trump’s purge has shaken the US military

ReMINISCENT of the stormy days of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon — the mighty headquarters of the US military — is under assault again. The only difference is that the Cheney-Rumsfeld combine has been replaced by Trump and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. The Pentagon, which did not see any major upheaval after the Rumsfeld era, was suddenly hit by tremors, but on a much larger scale, with the arrival of an aggressive, gloves-off Donald Trump as the Commander-in-Chief.

The conflict between Trump and the Pentagon started in his first term. Without military experience, he based his commander's role on personal loyalty. Though he appointed three respected retired generals to the key civilian posts of NSA, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Homeland Security, these officers were soon conflicted by the need to loyally serve an egoistic, impulsive and dominant President against their ingrained military ethos and professionalism. Unable to balance their values with the President's personality, all three generals either resigned or were sacked in the very first two years.

Trump's first term witnessed tensions, distrust and confrontation. He sidelined professionalism and often ridiculed senior military leaders by calling them "my" generals and other derogatory words in public. This did not sit well with a hierarchy unused to such behaviour and language.

There were serious disagreements with the Pentagon over Trump's decisions on troop reduction in Afghanistan and Syria, about America's relationship with the NATO, South Korea and Japan, interference in certain military promotions which was perceived as undermining the military justice system and discipline, apprehensions of a coup by Trump after the 2020 elections and, importantly, over the deployment of National Guard troops against civilian protesters.

A major flashpoint came after the Lafayette Square protests where Gen Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, inadvertently appeared alongside Trump, giving the impression of the military's support against civilian protests. Milley eventually made a public apology, but this resulted in serious retribution a few years later.

Trump commenced his second term in 2025 with all guns blazing. His appointment of Peter Hegseth as Secretary of Defense was mired in controversy. A former National Guard Major and TV anchor who was accused of various types of misconduct, Hegseth started a series of upheavals in the US military.

What followed was nothing less than a bloodbath. A series of high level sackings, generally unheard of in any military, marked the first few months of Trump's return. One of the first to go was Gen CQ Brown, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff. The others forced into retirement included Adm Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations, the first woman to hold that position, the Air Force Vice-Chief, the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, the Chief of Navy Reserve and the Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command.

General Milley, now retired, was also fired from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council and his security clearance and protection withdrawn. Hegseth also ordered an investigation into Milley's "conduct and a review of his military grade."

In May 2025, orders were issued for a 20 per cent cut of four-star ranks and 10 per cent of all other flag officers. The Pentagon's oversight office, the Operational Test and Evaluation Department, was also downsized, raising concerns that troops would be supplied with untested and untried equipment. Trump soon renamed the Department of Defense to a more macho Department of War, underlining his aggressiveness and belligerence to the world.

The other controversial decisions by Trump, like the deployment of National Guard troops in Washington DC, Los Angeles and Portland to control civilian protests and the creation of militarised zones along the Mexico border, forced the military into roles that it had never envisaged before.

On September 30, an unprecedented and much-speculated meeting of Trump-Hegseth took place with about 800 US flag officers flown in from across the world to Quantico. However, instead of spelling out Trump's vision of a greater US, international power projection by the US military or dwelling on larger strategic issues, the address by the two leaders to a silent and stoic military audience was more of a talk-down on mundane issues like 'warrior ethos', behaviour, physical fitness of senior officers, gender and diversity and political alignments, underlined by a clear threat to toe the line or else resign/get sacked.

In fact, just before leaving for the meeting, Trump told reporters: "I'm going to be meeting with generals, admirals and if I don't like somebody, I'm going to fire them right on the spot." A truly unbelievable message from the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military of the world, reminiscent of his TV show 'The Apprentice'. To add to the fire, by televising the proceedings of the meeting, Trump and Hegseth exposed themselves to ridicule, disbelief and criticism from the US population, as also the rest of the world.

So what is America's powerful military headed for?

Trump's relationship with the Pentagon, which started deteriorating during his first term, has further plunged in the last seven months, abetted by his maverick Secretary of War. The Quantico meeting has deepened the chasm between a traditional, disciplined military and a dominating, impulsive civilian leadership. This stormy relationship has brought into centre stage, critical issues of the suppression of military professionalism, erratic political decision-making, public humiliation and coercion of the senior hierarchy and distrust (reportedly there are plans to introduce mandatory non-disclosure agreements and lie-detector tests for personnel employed in sensitive departments).

All these issues are bound to erode the long-standing tenet of civilian control over an apolitical military, as also the morale of the leadership.

Trump’s decision to interview (read grill) nominees for promotion to four-star rank before their final approval is bound to lead to further politicisation of the US military.

Most senior officers have had many years of operational service in Afghanistan, Iraq and other hotspots around the world, and the idea of being interviewed or summoned, lectured and threatened on dress, discipline, physical appearance and warrior ethos by a drill sergeant-like Secretary of War could lead to resignations or subservience, neither of which would be good for America.

The more alarming decision by Trump is his use of the military in internal affairs, including riots and illegal immigration. Stressing on the "fundamental principle of defending the homeland being the military's most important priority", he has planned to create quick-reaction military forces to quell civil disturbances.

Such deployments and military-civilian confrontations are bound to turn violent and will undermine both the military's apolitical reputation and the long-established principle of insulating the forces from internal issues.

Trump's plummeting relationship with the Pentagon as well as the civilian leadership of the states in his first seven months, egged on by inexperienced political advisers, is indicative of a drift towards a more authoritarian Presidency.

In case matters precipitate further, while the US military, bound by oath and stringent traditions, may remain largely mute, judicial cases and civil resistance will certainly increase from political leaders, state governments, human rights and other civil institutions, retired military officers and other groups or individuals.

The real test will, however, come in the next few years both for the US armed forces and civil society in case Trump seeks to extend his reach and authority with the active use of the military.

Lt Gen SR Ghosh (retd) is former GOC-in -C, Western Command.