How generals and admirals get promoted now and how that may change under Trump

Patty Nieberg

Source Link

How the U.S. military chooses and promotes its generals and admirals — the highest-ranking officers in the military — rarely gets attention. That changed this month with reports that officials appointed under President-elect Donald Trump may take a far more direct role in shaping the military’s general officer corps.

Last week, the process that moves three- and four-star generals upwards came to the forefront when a promotion for Army Lt. Gen. Christopher Donahue was blocked by a Republican senator — a potential early warning sign of the Trump Administration’s reported plan to target senior military leaders who were in command during the military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Donahue was the ‘last man out of Afghanistan‘ as the commander of the 82nd Airborne in the final days of the military’s exit from Kabul and was up for his fourth star to command Army Europe and Africa.

Donahue’s hold-up came just after a Wall Street Journal report that Trump officials have drafted an executive order that could put three- and four-star officers on the chopping block for “lacking in requisite leadership qualities.” To do that, Trump officials may assemble a “warrior board,” according to some reports, of retired generals to review and recommend removals of three- and four-star officers they deem “unfit.” How such a board would define “unfit” remains unclear but Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense, Fox News host Pete Hegseth, has previously talked about firing senior generals who have been “involved in, any of the DEI woke s—,” referring to diversity, equity and inclusion policies, on the Shawn Ryan Show podcast. “Either you’re in for warfighting, and that’s it. That’s the only litmus test we care about.”

Retired generals and experts interviewed by Task & Purpose worried that any board designed by political figures could be a de facto loyalty test to Trump or an effort to get rid of generals who promote diversity policies instead of an assessment of leadership qualities, past performance and merit — something that the current process aims to look at when choosing officers.