Julie Roland published a compelling op-ed in the April 21 issue of The Fulcrum, titled “Hegseth, Trump and the desecration of the American Military.” It is a straightforward essay from a 10-year Lieutenant Commander for the U.S. Navy who was deployed as a helicopter pilot at the South China Sea and Persian Gulf. While her research-based piece is focused on the secular aspect of our military, let’s explore what effect Mr. Hegseth's and Mr. Trump’s firing of 15 senior military officers may have on Department of Defense (DOD) service employees and the military's readiness to protect America’s 348 million citizens.
Presidential compare and contrast analysis
A compare and contrast analysis of high-ranking military officer dismissals by previous modern-day presidents offers a contextual perspective.
During Ronald Reagan’s eight years as president, George H.W. Bush’s four-year term, George W. Bush’s 8-year presidency, and Joe Biden’s four years at the helm, no executive-level military officer was dismissed. President Bill Clinton ousted just one senior officer, Harold Campbell.
During the eight years Barack Obama was president, Fox News reported that he dismissed the following senior-level military personnel: Michael Carey, Michael Flynn, Charles Gaouette, Tim Giardina, James Mattis, and David McKiernan.
In Donald Trump’s first term of office, no high-ranking officer was dismissed. However, in just 15 months of Trump 2.0, 15 defense leaders have been fired: Joseph Berger, Charles Blummer, C.Q. Brown, Shoshana Chatfield, Linda Fagan, Lisa Franchetti, Randy George, William Green, Jr., Timothy Haugh, David Hodne, Jeffrey Kruse, John Phelan, Milton Sands, Jennifer Short, and James Slife.
Effects, Part One
A YouGov survey found that a majority of Americans feel the changes witnessed by Trump's and Hegseth's firing of top-level military personnel pose a national security risk.
A Partnership for Public Service survey of ~11,000 civilian defense employees found that their morale and satisfaction with Trump 2.0 endeavors have plunged substantially. Only 9.1 percent of Army DOD workers feel Hegseth’s political leadership team has generated a sense of high motivation (Military Times).
Since Trump’s Iran War started, more military personnel are seeking out conscientious objector advice and discharge options, which suggests rising unease that can reduce the workforce over time (NPR).
An April 10 NPR report revealed that calls to the GI Rights Hotline and related counseling services have risen sharply during Trump’s Iranian War. The same reporting cites military and policy experts saying the military officer firings send a negative signal to potential recruits.
Effects, Part Two
The immediate operational effect is not a collapse of U.S. operations, but a stress on the chain of command and confidence among troops and allies. Military analysts concur that removing high-caliber officers during Trump’s Iran War appears to be blame-shifting when the conflict is not going well (NBC Boston).
Furthermore, the firing of upper-level officers during the Iran War has been widely described as signaling internal DOD blame, tighter authoritarian control by President Trump, and less room for dissent inside the Pentagon.
Military experts note that when troops are mentally checked out and/or distrust the Pentagon, DOD, and the president, the senior-level firings affect military readiness with low morale, distrust, friction among military personnel, and unit performance (Slate).
U.S. commanders in the Middle East depend on stable senior leadership to manage four factors: deterrence, air defense, intelligence sharing, and responses to attacks. Hence, the turnover of 15 high-ranking military officers can complicate the continuity of military operations.
A leadership shake-up also makes it harder to maintain clear messaging to coalition partners. If allies think Washington’s senior team is politically unstable, they may delay cooperation, which weakens coordination within and among the 18 countries that comprise the Middle East.
Military concerns
The concept of 'escalation management’ is a big concern for military commanders. When top military officers are removed during active operations, the process of managing the risks of military action to achieve specific goals while avoiding “red lines” that could trigger a catastrophic response is greatly compromised (RAND Corporation, 2025).
Leadership caveat
Americans of all political persuasions, DOD employees, and active military personnel have witnessed that both Trump and Hegseth are thin-skinned, are not top-notch strategists or expert tacticians, and many times make decisions by impulse rather than short- and long-term well thought-out analysis and planning.
Overall effect
By Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth firing 15 high-ranking military officers in just 15 months of Trump 2.0, four outcomes occur: lower trust inside the military force, more nervous senior military leadership, greater concern among lawmakers and the public about military readiness and democratic oversight uncertainty. A weaker chain of professional advice exists at exactly the moment when the Middle East is most volatile.
Congress: Hello, is anyone working?
This is precisely the moment when congressional oversight should be at its most vigilant. The dismissal of 15 senior officers in 15 months, combined with an ongoing conflict lacking clear objectives, demands scrutiny from the legislative branch. Congressional oversight is not partisan obstruction—it is a constitutional responsibility. The country’s security depends on ensuring that military leadership decisions are grounded in strategy, not impulse, and that the Department of Defense remains guided by professional judgment rather than political turbulence. It is time for Congress to step up.
Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa and a non-paid freelance guest columnist contributor to 158 newspapers and 47 social media platforms in 44 states
Children watch a July Fourth Parade along the Walkway of Heroes and Independence Avenue on July 04, 2026 in Tappan, New York.
The Great American Grumpfest
Our nation’s 250th birthday party didn’t feel especially patriotic and wasn’t as much fun as the 200th anniversary was.
President Trump, who did his best to co-opt our holiday for his personal aggrandizement, was a major reason. The party he threw in Washington, D.C., was crankier than uplifting, and less about celebrating our shared past and a promising future than about reminding us how far we have strayed from our founders’ plan to create a republic that future Americans would keep in good working order.
Credit Trump this much. He has a singular gift for picking at scabs that other politicians would rather ignore and pushing us into reckonings we don’t need.
The thing is, Americans have seen all this before. Sometimes the makeover we were encouraged to undertake was more conservative, sometimes more liberal. Whatever direction we were pushing, however, the reckoning we had in mind this time had to be more forthright and the conclusion more definitive than it was the last time.
Our current discontents, the ones behind the reckoning President Trump has been trying to inspire, are not trivial. Included among them are immigration, birthright citizenship, exploding healthcare costs, election rigging, a gag-inducing national debt, how we educate our children, too many genders, racial differences we can’t move past, a lopsided economy that favors more well-off Americans, and historic levels of political corruption and graft. Add to these the several foreign adventures he has pushed us into or is anxious to undertake, and you have the makings of a national headache the likes of which we haven’t had in half a century.
All the elbow-throwing and overheated rhetoric we’re using today have begun to look almost normal in all the ways that bickering neighbors and feuding family members appear normal. But they have also made us look mean-spirited and have portrayed our differences as irreconcilable. To ourselves, of course, but also to many people outside the United States who might be forgiven for turning their heads and not looking at the national car wreck we Americans show no interest in avoiding.
The good news, as I suggested above, is that Americans have had a great deal of practice dealing with challenges and national car wrecks like these.
This essay begins to lay out the reasons why.
By way of illustration, we have our seemingly insatiable demand for more bad news about race in America.
Sixty years after being released from the legal constrictions that bedeviled both white and black Americans, many white people have come to believe the color that used to make them unassailable is now a sign of a moral inferiority born of a racial animus they can never wash off. Many black people, on the other hand, are insisting that America is as hopelessly stacked against them as the formerly unassailable white people’s ancestors used to tell their black ones.
The result is that many people today are buying into racist nightmares and mumbo jumbo that their black and white ancestors worked hard and effectively to put in each other’s heads.
This might be dismissed as crazy behavior if it weren’t so important to rituals Americans have long used to express their deepest fears about each other while figuring out what move they can make that won’t end with their world crashing down on everybody’s head.
Unfortunately, the kind of cultural sleight of hand we have used to ramp up our racial differences has been appropriated by people who have many other cultural fears and unresolved differences with each other. Their clumsy but culturally prescribed missteps are making all these other issues look as irremediable as our racial problems.
A good place to start an answer to how we back away from ledges is Alexis de Tocqueville’s writing on early-19th-century American democracy. He had an optimistic take on Americans’ unscripted displays of public bravado, recrimination, and payback.
For him, these were occasions when people tried to mitigate the effects of the unfair hand they were dealing someone else or had themselves been dealt by behaving in ways quite at odds with how they would otherwise be expected to act. These inversions of what Tocqueville called “the natural order of conscience” presented themselves as a loud but culturally muted challenge to the hypocrisies that people had built into the world they’d made together.
One of his favorite illustrations of early-American hypocrisy involved slave masters sleeping with their less-than-worthy slaves. To the best of my knowledge, he didn’t pick up on all the ways that slaves messed with their owners. Their well-chronicled and quiet resistance showed that even severely ill-treated people can exercise more control over their lives than outsiders appreciate.
Be that as it may, such inversions of a people’s “natural order of conscience” make a good public show of them wrestling with demons they can’t or may not want to shake off, but in any case, are nowhere close to figuring out how to cast out.
Implicit in these disruptions was the discomforting idea that people might flip the entire script and turn the world on its head in more permanent ways. That kind of flipping worked out better for us in our revolution against England than in our Civil War. These events taught us the value of stepping back from historically unprecedented ledges.
Americans of late have been giving loud expression to a long list of things they don’t like about each other and the last makeover they started but didn’t finish a half-century ago. The outcome of our fights today will be as revealing as they are embarrassing to everyone who imagined they could recast our country in a way that privileged their favorite kind of Americans.
Their disappointment with the accommodations they strike will be palpable, but the middling results they achieve with all their pushing and shoving won’t be anything they can’t live with.
Anthropologists who have written about such moments in other cultures less “advanced” than our own show that people find ways to work around their seemingly irreconcilable differences without ever fully resolving them. Indeed, the patches and repairs people make have the unheralded effect of reinforcing rather than undermining the legitimacy of the practices and values they thought were fundamentally flawed.
For example…
White guilt and black pessimism do more good than putting cash into the pockets of professional shamers and handwringers. They give the rest of us who don’t feel guilty or powerless more time to make the world less racially unequal. Good news.
Regarding illegal immigration, the entrance requirements for future immigrants will remain stringent. Americans will applaud the continued detention and deportation of the few illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes. Good news.
All the people who came to the United States without being legally vetted and were locked up for a time will be released in numbers small enough to avoid serious media attention. Along with the several million other good people who snuck in but avoided capture, the former detainees will go to school, find gainful employment, pay their taxes, and stay out of trouble. Many will eventually become citizens. Good news.
Investigations into election tampering and Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential loss will come to an unceremonious conclusion the day after his second term ends. Many Americans will grumble about this, but there will also be some quiet partying, too. Good and bad news.
Congressional hearings into all the grifting accomplished by people tied to the Trump administration will end without anyone having to pay a dime back to the American taxpayers. Bad news, we’ll learn to live with.
New laws and regulations will be created in the hope that the kind of corruption practiced by President Trump will not be repeated for another 250 years. Good news, I hope we’ll live long enough to enjoy.
Show trials for people who allegedly vandalized the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, if they happen, will get big television viewer ratings. Good news.
Trials for pardoned Capitol insurrectionists who committed serious crimes after their release should get more attention, but won’t. Bad news.
We will continue to hear nothing from most of the people who were pardoned for crimes they committed in the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They will keep their mouths shut and their heads down for the rest of their life. Good news.
The gold-gilded ornaments that Donald Trump had plastered all over the White House will be shipped to Mar-a-Lago, where the former president will sell them on eBay. Fun news.
American taxpayers end up paying for most of the new East Wing, the removal of the miniature gladiatorial arena that was built behind the White House, and the restoration of the White House rose garden. Bad news.
The Triumphal Arch was never built. Good news.
Trad wives and gay couples raise perfectly lovely children. Good but unsurprising news.
Trans men and women learn that most Americans can’t figure out who they used to be. No one gives a second thought to their use of “family bathrooms” or “unisex bathrooms” in public settings, businesses, and schools. Communities will sponsor athletic teams that have trans boys and girls just to show they can. Good news.
Budget deficits will be kicked down the road for someone else’s children to pay down. Bad news.
Federal agencies that had their budgets and employee ranks slashed during President Trump’s second term are getting some of the money and lost positions back. Good news.
Elite universities will buy their way out of DEI purgatory by competing for conservative scholars whose inflated salaries dwarf those of their liberal colleagues, who will think about suing their institutions for reverse discrimination but won’t be able to figure out who would pay for it or care. More fun news.
Okay. I’ve probably missed some ways that Americans will step back from the ledges they have been making noises about leaping off. But to the extent that my predictions pan out, the best and most important moral of the stories about us stepping away is this: everything we lost and took back, or had returned to us, will have happened without our government collapsing, civic traditions crumbling, or our people beating each other up.
The reason why is that the differences Americans have with each other really weren’t as irreconcilable as we made them out to be. The empty-sounding bromide that Americans have more that unites us than divides us turns out to be true, not just metaphorically but in fact.
Now that is really something to celebrate.
Daniel J. Monti (danieljmonti.com) is Professor of Sociology at Saint Louis University and the author of American Democracy and Disconsent: Liberalism and Illiberalism in Ferguson, Charlottesville, Black Lives Matter, and the Capitol Insurrection.