Pete Hegseth’s reason for dismissing top-ranking military leaders makes no sense

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plan to dismiss 10% of active duty general or flag officers and eliminate 20% of four-star general officer positions in the active-duty military was announced in a memo that says the Pentagon “must cultivate exceptional senior leaders who drive innovation and operational excellence.” But we’re all left wondering: What problem does this planned reduction solve? Or is it the Trump administration’s indictment of the current senior leadership of the United States military?

What analysis was conducted that resulted in these proposed reductions, or are they just arbitrary percentages? The American public deserves to know the strategy that’s motivating this plan.

The Pentagon’s May 5 memorandum for senior leadership also directed a 20% reduction in general officers in the National Guard. Said memo provides few details on how this is to be effected and sets no deadline. But this effort will unquestionably have a profound impact not only on our nation’s military leadership but also the direction of American national security policy in the future.

Hegseth has said it is not a “slash and burn exercise,” but it looks like it is. The secretary has also declared that his goal is “fewer generals and more GIs.” That’s a catchy tag line, but there is no correlation between the two. Reducing the number of generals and admirals will not necessarily generate significant resources that can be devoted to expanding the force.

It’s hard to argue that the military should be exempt from the reductions in manpower and spending that President Donald Trump’s administration is pursuing more generally. Clearly, the Pentagon, the world’s largest bureaucracy, has grown over time. Those in favor of reducing the number of officers point out that there are approximately 800 active-duty general officers or flag officers for roughly 1.3 million troops — or one such officer for every 1,400 troops. During World War II, an admittedly different era, the ratio was one such officer for every 6,000 troops. Their argument is that what we see now is evidence of a “rank creep” that doesn’t enhance mission success but only clutters the chain of command and adds bureaucratic layers to decision-making.

But we’re nearly 80 years past World War II, and the increasing complexity of 21st century warfare has necessitated dramatic changes in force structure, procurement and strategy. For example, the United States established a new functional command, Cyber Command in 2010, and a new service, Space Force, in 2019.

Hegseth’s order will result in the forced retirement of roughly 150 senior officers, many of whom have vast experience in national security affairs. More than that, it could also encourage more junior general officers to opt for retirement.

There are currently 38 active duty four-star positions in the U.S. military, including the chief of the National Guard Bureau. The 38 include 11 Army generals, three Marine generals, eight Navy admirals, 12 Air Force generals and three Space Force generals. The vast majority serve in command positions, such as chief of staff of the Army or chief of Naval operations, or on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The rest either command forces in geographic regions around the globe — such as CENTCOM for the Middle East, European Command or Pacific Command — or “functional” commands like Transportation Command or Strategic Command for strategic nuclear forces.

The elimination of at least eight of these positions would require a significant reorganization of American military forces and national security personnel. 

Hegseth’s plan is the latest in Trump’s broader assault on the leadership of the American military. He already fired about a half dozen three- and four-star officers, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of Naval operations and the commandant of the Coast Guard. This was ostensibly to root out diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from the military. Many fear that this was largely because the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs was African American and the Coast Guard commandant as well as the chief of Naval Operations were women.

Later, at the urging of Laura Loomer, a right-wing social media activist who promotes the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. government, the president fired National Security Agency Director Gen. Timoth Haugh and his deputy. Loomer argued that retired Gen. Mark Milley, a former Joint Chiefs chairman, had appointed Haugh and that he was disloyal to Trump.

So is Hegseth’s plan an effort to streamline the Pentagon bureaucracy or further politicize the American military? Does Hegseth seek to open leadership positions in the American military that can be filled by officers based on their political beliefs and loyalty to the president as opposed to their knowledge and experience? The secretary described previous firings as “a reflection of the president wanting the right people around him,” and Trump argued during the campaign that he would “weed out military officers” ideologically opposed to him.

Hegseth says his goal is to make the American military more efficient, but his actions suggest that he’s crippling it.