The Transformative Impact of Trump on U.S. Civil-Military Relations
The Shift Begins
In 2017, as Donald Trump assumed the office of the President of the United States, the landscape of civil-military relations began to shift dramatically under his administration. The phrase “my generals,” frequently used by Trump, marked a departure from historical norms that prioritize civilian control over the military. His appointing of retired Marine General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense—requiring a congressional waiver—signaled an unusual embrace of military leadership in civilian roles. Mattis’s appointment was especially noteworthy as he became the first former general to hold the position since George Marshall in 1950.
Trump’s administration saw a series of appointments that included other high-ranking military officers in civilian roles. Former Marine General John Kelly served as Secretary of Homeland Security and later as White House Chief of Staff, while retired General Michael Flynn and active-duty General H.R. McMaster were appointed as national security advisers. This unprecedented use of military figures in high civilian offices raised eyebrows, as it appeared to align more with the practices of military juntas than those of a constitutional republic. Trump reveled in the strength these generals seemingly provided but was quick to cast them aside when they no longer served his purposes.
Disillusion with the Military
In just two years, Trump’s view on these military leaders soured. He dismissed nearly all of them, often with public insults. For instance, Trump controversially suggested that General Mark Milley, whom he selected as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be executed for treason after Milley sought to reassure China of U.S. intentions following the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021. By the time Trump began his second term in January 2023, he harbored deep suspicions of the military establishment he had assembled, perceiving these figures as part of a “deep state” that obstructed his agenda.
New Leadership, New Direction
To solidify his control, Trump appointed Pete Hegseth—essentially a media personality with limited military experience—as his Secretary of Defense. This decision illuminated a shift in priorities, as Hegseth’s chief qualifications included unwavering loyalty to Trump rather than extensive military or administrative expertise. Under Hegseth’s direction, military culture faced a radical shift, characterized by a promise to purge “woke garbage” and a focus on returning Confederate names to military bases.
In tandem, Trump pushed to rename the Department of Defense to the “Department of War,” an act unsupported legally by executive order. They both engaged in politically charged speeches and initiatives that drew public attention, including Trump’s derogatory remarks about Democrats while discussing naval anniversaries.
Impact on Military Professionalism
The actions taken by Trump and Hegseth raised serious concerns regarding military professionalism and apolitical conduct. Their tenure included the firing of numerous generals, many of whom were women and minorities, for ambiguous reasons often perceived as politically motivated. Tactics like removing celebrated diversity initiatives from military education and commemorations echoed a broader cultural war agenda that threatened to undermine the military’s long-standing traditions.
The ramifications of these actions were far-reaching. Military morale, recruitment, and retention were jeopardized while distracting from the central mission of addressing geopolitical threats. The armed forces—once a bastion of professional integrity—now faced challenges that tested the very essence of their constitutional obligations.
The “Purge” and Its Consequences
Beginning on January 21, 2023, the administration acted swiftly to implement the MAGA brand across U.S. military operations. In quick succession, key figures such as Admiral Linda Fagan, the first female commandant of the Coast Guard, were dismissed for reasons tied to diversity focus. Additional firings throughout the Department of Defense illustrated a clear trend of retribution against those perceived as lacking loyalty to Trump’s vision.
When General C. Q. Brown, the second Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Admiral Lisa Franchetti faced unexplained dismissals, speculation mounted regarding whether their demographics influenced these decisions. Their replacements, selected for perceived loyalty rather than qualifications, further emphasized Trump’s preference for allegiance over ability.
Legislative and Legal Shortcomings
The atmosphere established by the Trump administration presented profound risks for American democracy. The swift and sweeping changes under Hegseth, including efforts to solidify a loyalist military culture, undermined traditional checks and balances. Historian parallels were drawn with past administrations that had dismissed military leaders for defying orders or diverging from the administration’s narrative.
As firings escalated, it became evident that information transparency was no longer a priority. Intelligence officials were dismissed for presenting accurate assessments that contradicted Trump’s narratives. This political pressure created ‘groupthink’ dynamics that could hinder critical decision-making processes, especially in matters of national security.
Deployments and Unconventional Warfare
Trump’s exercise of military power extended beyond typical administrative boundaries. He authorized deployments positioned as efforts against crime in “Democrat-run” cities. Legal challenges arose against these actions, prompting questions regarding the legality of federalizing National Guard troops against the will of state governors—a move rarely seen since the 1960s.
Moreover, Trump’s administration engaged military resources in a “war on drugs,” culminating in lethal strikes on vessels purportedly linked to drug trafficking. These actions stirred controversy and raised questions about the legitimacy of military force without clear legal frameworks, echoing concerns similar to those faced in past military interventions.
Public Trust and Military Integrity
The troubling trajectory of civil-military relations under Trump prompted widespread anxiety regarding the fundamental principles that have historically governed the U.S. armed forces. As political loyalties overshadowed military professionalism, the institution’s integrity was at risk. Service members, who swore an oath to defend the Constitution rather than a single individual, faced increasing pressures that could threaten their ethical and operational mandates.
While the Biden administration seeks to restore some semblance of normalcy, the ramifications of Trump’s tenure on civil-military relations remain a critical discussion point for military leaders, historians, and political scientists alike. The long-term implications of this shift call for close scrutiny as the profession grapples with the balance between loyalty to elected leaders and adherence to constitutional values.
Future Implications
As Trump’s era continues to influence military culture, preparations for future administrations will be essential in maintaining an apolitical military. Concerns over unit cohesion, recruitment difficulties, and operational clarity underpin what is at stake. The military’s ability to rise above partisan politics is crucial for preserving its esteemed position both domestically and internationally.
The fundamental question of loyalty, integrity, and purpose remains vital in ensuring that the armed forces adapt without compromising their core values—a dual challenge for military leaders and policymakers alike in the years to come.