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
