The Politicization of the Military: A Dangerous Trend

President Trump’s recent decision to fire senior military leaders without cause is not only unwise but also deeply concerning. This action undermines the professionalism and apolitical nature of the U.S. military, an institution that has long been a cornerstone of American democracy. The dismissal of these leaders, including three judge advocates general (JAGs), signals a disturbing trend: the politicization of the military. This move is part of a broader attack on the rule of law, and it threatens to erode the trust and integrity that the military has built over decades.

Senior Military Leaders: A Legacy of Honor and Professionalism

The removal of senior military leaders like Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., Gen. James Slife, and Adm. Lisa Franchetti is particularly troubling. These individuals are not just highly decorated officers; they are also deeply respected for their professionalism, patriotism, and dedication to the nation. Having worked with Gen. Brown during his tenure as Air Force chief of staff and later as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is clear that he embodies the highest standards of leadership and integrity. Their dismissal without cause is a slap in the face to their decades of service and sets a dangerous precedent. It raises the specter of political loyalty becoming a key criterion for holding high military positions, a shift that could have far-reaching consequences for the military’s ability to remain apolitical.

The Role of Judge Advocates General: Guardians of the Rule of Law

Even more alarming is the removal of the three senior JAGs, who are the military’s top legal authorities. These officers play a critical role in upholding the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the legal framework that governs the behavior of military personnel. They are tasked with ensuring that military actions are lawful and that troops in the field understand their legal obligations. Perhaps most importantly, JAGs have the authority to independently determine whether orders from commanders, including the president, are lawful. If an order violates the law, JAGs can refuse to carry it out. This independence is essential to maintaining the rule of law within the military and preventing abuses of power.

The Dismissal of JAGs: A Blow to Legal Independence

The removal of Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer and other JAGs is particularly concerning. Lt. Gen. Plummer, whom I have worked with for over three years, is widely respected for his legal expertise and his commitment to upholding the law. His dismissal, like that of the other JAGs, appears to be motivated by a desire to replace him with someone more loyal to the administration. This is a dangerous erosion of the independence that JAGs must maintain. If the military’s legal leadership is beholden to political appointees, it undermines the very foundation of the U.S. military justice system. The JAG corps is meant to be a check on power, ensuring that even the highest-ranking officials are held accountable under the law.

The Administration’s Disregard for the Rule of Law

The Trump administration’s disregard for legal constraints is well-documented. President Trump has made it clear that he believes the ends justify the means, even if it means violating the law. His recent statement, “He who saves his country does not violate any law,” is a chilling expression of this mindset. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is overseeing the replacement of the JAG leadership, has also shown a similar disdain for legal constraints. His support for convicted war criminals and his opposition to legal oversight of military actions suggest that he views the JAG corps as an obstacle to unfettered military action. Together, Trump and Hegseth are undermining the principles of accountability and justice that are essential to a functioning democracy.

The Broader Implications: A Threat to American Values

The replacement of the JAG leadership is just one part of a larger pattern of disrespect for the rule of law. This administration’s actions, from undermining the independence of the judiciary to attacking the free press, suggest a broader authoritarian impulse. The military, which has always been a symbol of American values, is now being drawn into this battle. The JAG corps, in particular, represents the best of those values: a commitment to justice, equality, and the rule of law. If the JAG leadership is replaced with loyalists who are willing to bend the law to suit the administration’s desires, it could have devastating consequences for the military and for the nation as a whole.

A Call to Action: Defending the Rule of Law

The American people must recognize the gravity of this situation. The military is not a political tool to be wielded by the president or his administration. It is a professional institution that exists to protect the nation and uphold its values. The rule of law is one of those values, and it is under threat. The dismissal of the JAG leadership is not just an attack on the military; it is an attack on the very foundations of American democracy. We must speak out against this erosion of the rule of law and demand accountability from our leaders. The stakes could not be higher.