Pete Hegseth’s Campaign to Remake the U.S. Military

Council on Foreign Relations | Carla Anne Robbins

Pete Hegseth’s campaign to reshape the U.S. military has extended beyond cultural rhetoric into senior leadership appointments and promotions. Since 2025, the defence secretary has fired or blocked the promotions of more than eighty generals and admirals, representing 10 percent of the most senior officers. Almost half were female or minority officers. The changes raise questions about leadership quality and morale.

In a discussion with New York Times Pentagon correspondent Greg Jaffe, Carla Anne Robbins examines the motivations and institutional effects of Hegseth’s approach. Jaffe links the campaign to grievances over Iraq and Afghanistan, political alignment and Christian nationalist beliefs. He describes particular effects on senior women officers and concerns about whether serving leaders offer candid advice. The account also identifies congressional resistance to Pentagon budget requests and senior nominations. Disputes over munition stockpiles, damage to U.S. bases during the Iran war and spending plans have complicated relations with lawmakers. Vacancies in senior Army and Navy civilian and military leadership further illustrate the difficulties. The discussion leaves open whether the campaign will improve recruitment or weaken institutional trust and the quality of military judgement.

Comment

The central institutional question is how personnel selection affects the quality of military advice. Hegseth’s approach treats senior appointments and promotion decisions as instruments for reshaping the force’s culture. Supporters could interpret this as an attempt to align leadership with civilian policy and operational priorities. Critics, including Greg Jaffe in the account, see a risk that scrutiny of officers’ public statements and backgrounds narrows the range of experience represented at senior planning tables.

The competing interpretations turn on how selection decisions influence professional judgement. Removing leaders can change institutional direction, but perceived ideological tests could also make serving officers less willing to challenge assumptions. Jaffe’s comparison with the Afghanistan withdrawal illustrates the distinction: he describes senior commanders who privately opposed a rapid move to zero troops while still carrying out civilian decisions. That example supports the value of candid advice within a lawful chain of command. His concern about Gen. Dan Caine rests on whether a narrower understanding of the chairman’s role reduces the space for such advice.

The evidence presented does not settle the argument. The account reports congressional resistance, senior vacancies and concerns about morale, but it does not establish a direct causal link between personnel changes and military performance. The U.S. military’s experience during the Afghanistan withdrawal therefore remains a useful test of the distinction between executing civilian decisions and privately assessing their risks.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If Hegseth’s personnel campaign continues, what evidence would distinguish stronger civilian control from a weakening of candid military advice, particularly in decisions like the Afghanistan withdrawal?

The distinction rests on whether leaders retain the freedom to present professional assessments before executing civilian decisions. The account raises legitimate concerns about promotion patterns and senior vacancies, but it does not yet demonstrate how those changes have affected operational outcomes. The Afghanistan withdrawal provides a concrete reference point for examining the relationship between private military advice and civilian authority.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here