As the political landscape shifts with President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the Pentagon braces for what many see as inevitable disruption and upheaval. The once and future commander-in-chief has made no secret of his intentions, leading to widespread concern within the military and beyond. There's palpable fear that Trump will follow through on his past promises—namely, to deploy the military domestically against American citizens, demand unwavering loyalty from military leaders, and reshape the Pentagon to serve his personal agenda rather than its traditional nonpartisan mission.
These fears echo the tumultuous events of Trump’s first presidency, a time when the commander-in-chief frequently clashed with the Pentagon’s senior leadership, often disregarding norms and questioning long-standing practices. If his rhetoric is any indication, his second term will likely continue in the same vein. During his campaign, Trump promised to use the military against what he called the "enemy from within," to hold accountable those responsible for the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, and to undo the Biden administration’s “woke” policies—including renaming Army bases that honor Confederate leaders.
A Threat to the Military’s Integrity
The most significant concern, according to Richard Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina, is the potential erosion of the military’s professionalism. “The greatest danger the military faces,” Kohn warns, is a rapid loss of respect from the American people if Trump’s political influence over the military becomes more pronounced. This sentiment reflects deep concerns about the militarization of domestic politics and the potential for a military that’s no longer seen as a neutral force but one that serves the whims of a political leader.
Trump’s critics, particularly former members of his administration, have been outspoken about the risks posed by his leadership style. Among them are figures like former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, retired Gen. Mark Milley, and former White House chief of staff John Kelly. Jim Mattis, another former defense secretary, also voiced his concerns, calling Trump the first president in his lifetime who “does not try to unite the American people.” These figures served as crucial checks on Trump’s most dangerous impulses, especially when it came to military matters. They feared that Trump might push the military to violate constitutional principles or issue unlawful orders.
Military Clashes and Controversies in the First Term
Trump’s first term in office was marked by a series of controversial moves that caught military leaders off guard. Although his administration did bolster the Pentagon's budget, loosen battlefield restrictions, and pushed NATO allies to spend more on defense, Trump’s impulsive decision-making often stirred chaos. One of the most significant disruptions came when Trump intervened in the cases of U.S. troops convicted of war crimes, seeking pardons despite strong opposition from military officials.
Another source of friction was his abrupt attempts to ban transgender service members without a clear plan, leaving military leaders scrambling to respond. His withdrawal from northern Syria in 2019, announced via social media, sparked confusion and backlash, particularly among U.S. allies in the region. Similarly, his push for a personnel reduction in Afghanistan, conducted while U.S. negotiators were still in talks with the Taliban, was another instance of decision-making that created turmoil within the Pentagon.
Disruption and Fear Among Career Pentagon Staff
During Trump’s first term, the Defense Department was rocked by political infighting and abrupt leadership changes, leaving many career officials uncertain about their future. One of the most striking elements of Trump’s presidency was his concerted effort to root out civil servants who disagreed with him or were suspected of undermining his policies. For many Pentagon employees, this created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, as they were unsure whether their jobs would be safe if they spoke out or resisted his agenda.
Some Pentagon staff still bear the scars of that hyperpartisan era. “People around here are used to transitions,” said one senior official, “but a lot of them were around for the Trump administration.” The chaotic decision-making and leadership changes left many employees unsure how to navigate their roles, especially when Trump's demands seemed arbitrary and unpredictable. The concern is that this environment of instability could resurface, making it even more difficult for Pentagon officials to do their jobs with the level of professionalism and integrity the public expects.
Preparing for a Turbulent Transition
Following the election, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a retired general who has spent more than four decades in the military, issued a memo to Pentagon personnel emphasizing the importance of a smooth and orderly transition to the incoming Trump administration. In the memo, Austin reassured military personnel that they would remain steadfast in their mission to serve the nation, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. However, he also reminded staff that the military must continue to stand apart from the political arena, stressing that it must obey only lawful orders from the commander-in-chief.
Interestingly, Austin’s use of the word “lawful” raised eyebrows. When asked about it during a news briefing, Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh declined to speculate on hypothetical scenarios but emphasized that the memo was intended to remind everyone that the military must remain apolitical and committed to the Constitution.
Political Influence Over Military Leadership
Trump’s return to power will also give him the authority to reshuffle the Pentagon’s leadership. Senior military officers typically serve long terms, with positions like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff being rotated on a four-year basis. Gen. Charles Q. Brown, who became the first African American to lead the Air Force under Trump, is now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Trump’s return could prompt a move to replace such officials with individuals he perceives as more loyal to his vision.
That concern is real. Some Pentagon insiders worry that Gen. Brown may not finish his full term, particularly given the ongoing political pressure on him for supporting diversity initiatives within the military. This could set a dangerous precedent, as replacing top military leaders based on political loyalty rather than merit undermines the nonpartisan nature of the institution.
A Military at Risk of Political Repression?
Perhaps the most concerning element of a second Trump term is the potential for the military to be used as a tool to suppress dissent within the United States. Legal experts and former military officials have raised alarms about the potential for Trump to use the armed forces to quash domestic opposition. The military, while required to follow U.S. law, could easily interpret presidential orders as lawful, even in gray areas, leading to the potential for unconstitutional actions taken under the guise of following orders.
Former Air Force attorney Rachel VanLandingham warns that the consequences for disobeying such orders could be severe. "There is huge risk in disobeying a president’s order," she notes, "and seemingly little risk in obeying it." If the military becomes more directly aligned with the president’s political agenda, it could create a dangerous precedent where military personnel are used to suppress political opposition rather than protect citizens’ rights.
The Role of Military Leaders: A Call for Professionalism
At the heart of the debate is the role of military leaders in standing up to what they perceive as dangerous or unlawful presidential orders. Peter Feaver, a professor of political science at Duke University, argues that military professionals have an essential duty to advise the president on the unintended consequences of his actions. This advice is not disloyalty but a crucial part of their professional responsibility to the nation. Feaver urges the incoming administration not to retaliate against military leaders or career civil servants who offer counterarguments to White House policies.
In the end, the Pentagon’s ability to maintain its integrity as a nonpartisan institution will be put to the test in the coming months. Will the military be able to serve as an apolitical force focused on national security, or will it become a tool for a president determined to reshape it in his own image? The stakes have never been higher, and the decisions made in the coming years will have long-lasting implications for both the military and American democracy as a whole.
Login