WASHINGTON — Five former secretaries of defense are calling on Congress to hold immediate hearings on President Donald Trump's recent firings of the chairman^[1] of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and several other senior military leaders, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press^[2].

The five men — who represented Republican and Democratic administrations over the past three decades — said the dismissals were alarming, raised “troubling questions about the administration’s desire to politicize the military" and removed legal constraints on the president’s power.

Late last week, Trump fired Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr.^[3] as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth^[4] followed that by firing Adm. Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations; Gen. Jim Slife, vice chief of the Air Force; and the judge advocates general for the military services^[5].

Hegseth has defended the firing of Brown, saying that other presidents made changes in military personnel and that Trump deserves to pick his own team. Hegseth said he fired the JAGs because he didn’t think they were “well-suited” to provide recommendations when lawful orders are given.

The letter — signed by William Perry, Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel^[6], Jim Mattis^[7] and Lloyd Austin^[8] — said there were no real justifications for the firings because several of the officers had been nominated by Trump for previous positions. And it said they had exemplary careers, including operational and combat experience.

“We, like many Americans — including many troops — are therefore left to conclude that these leaders are being fired for purely partisan reasons,” said the letter, adding that “we’re not asking members of Congress to do us a favor; we’re asking them to do their jobs.”

In the meantime, they said, senators should refuse to confirm any new Pentagon nominations, including retired Lt. Gen. Dan Caine, who Trump has said should be the next joint chiefs chairman.

Trump’s choice of Caine^[9] is unusual. Caine, who is widely respected in the military, would have to come back onto active duty but he does not meet the legal requirements for the top post. According to law, a chairman must have served as a combatant commander or service chief. The president can waive those requirements.

Hagel is a Republican and Mattis, an independent, was Trump's first defense chief. The other three are Democrats. Four of the five served in the military, including two — Mattis and Austin — who were four-star generals.

"The House and Senate should demand that the administration justify each firing and fully explain why it violated Congress’ legislative intent that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff complete a four-year term in office," the letter said.

The chairman has a four-year term, and Brown had served a bit less than 17 months.

In recent decades, a number of three-star and four-star officers have been fired, but Pentagon leaders have routinely made clear why they were ousted. Those reasons included disagreements over the conduct of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, problems with the oversight of America’s nuclear arsenal and public statements critical of the president and other leaders.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Navy^[1]'s first female chief, last week without any clear explanation -- part of a purge of top uniformed leadership^[2] that included the Joint Chiefs chairman, who is Black, and sent shock waves across the military.

Franchetti's firing has left the military without a single woman in a four-star general or admiral leadership position, as women in top positions are already a rarity across the services, and many female officers say that they're concerned that the ouster will have far-reaching consequences.

Hegseth has repeatedly touted what he calls a merit-based approach as he seeks to overhaul the military and scrub programs and policies that advocated for women, as well as for troops with minority backgrounds. But false claims that race and gender have played an outsized role in military promotions and a lack of clarity on why he actually fired Franchetti have left troops wondering whether the shake-up is more political than procedural.

Read Next: Military Spouses Fired in Trump's Government Purge Seek Answers, Reinstatement^[3]

Military.com spoke with about half a dozen female officers, ranging from the midcareer level to generals, after the firing, and many of them noted that Franchetti's credentials were fully in line with her predecessors in the chief of naval operations role. By failing to justify the firing, they argue, the Trump administration is sending a clear message: Women are no longer welcome in the military's highest ranks.

All military officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation.

"His comments about women certainly have an impact," one senior woman officer told Military.com on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation. "The culture he wants is going to make any woman look like she didn't earn her position, and he probably set us back two decades."

Franchetti's firing was announced late Friday^[4] by Hegseth, who said he was "requesting nominations" for the Navy's top job -- effectively signaling the removal of Franchetti without explicitly saying she had been fired or offering any rationale for her ouster.

Hegseth's brief statement was notable for what it left out.

While he acknowledged Franchetti's "distinguished" career and thanked her for her service, he offered no explanation for why she was being replaced. That silence stands in stark contrast to his own words in a book published before his appointment as defense secretary, in which he lambasted Franchetti as unqualified, without specifics, and suggested she was elevated for political optics rather than merit.

"Naval operations being weakened won't matter to anyone," he wrote at the time, adding that "politics is all about optics instead of results."

When Military.com asked Hegseth's office on Monday for more details or a reason for Franchetti's firing, officials refused to offer any information and instead referred questions to the Navy, despite the fact that the service itself had no hand in the decision to remove its own leader.

The contrast with the earlier firing of another top female leader couldn't be more stark.

When the Department of Homeland Security relieved the top Coast Guard^[5] officer, Adm. Linda Fagan, just hours into President Donald Trump's second term^[6], officials provided a list of reasons to reporters that ranged from perceived failures to address border security and her role in the massive cover-up of sexual assault at the Coast Guard Academy to an "excessive focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies," according to reports^[7].

Online, the reaction to Franchetti's firing largely consisted of sailors recalling positive interactions they had with the admiral, as well as a host of comments^[8] that remarked on the apparently political nature of her ouster.

Some prominent military influencers reacted to the firing by expressing a general sadness^[9] or thanking Franchetti for being an inspiration^[10]. Other posts didn't specifically mention Franchetti^[11] but noted that "leadership isn't about titles" and that "when great leaders act with integrity, those of us who served under them will carry that legacy forward, no matter what."

Some women in the military also warned that actions like Franchetti's ouster or reports that other top female officers^[12] were being removed from prestigious roles, like the senior military assistant to Hegseth, will have long-lasting effects on recruiting^[13] and retention.

Many of the women who spoke with Military.com noted how important it was for them to have high-achieving female role models. Some said that their own sense of how included they felt in the military would be critical in determining whether they would recommend military service to their daughters or other female relatives.

Earlier in February, retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former supreme allied commander of NATO, publicly said that^[14] he couldn't recommend military service to his daughter today while citing Military.com's reporting^[15] on the Trump administration removing websites dedicated to female service members.

The military's top brass remains overwhelmingly male -- not just as a result of the recent shake-ups, but as a reflection of the slow and often uphill climb for women in an institution long resistant to change. Progress at the lower ranks has not yet translated to the highest echelons, a lagging effect of promotion pipelines that stretch back decades.

The issue is especially notable in the Army^[16], which is significantly larger than the other military branches and thus produces the most officers. The service has an overt bias in favor of combat arms officers, including those who come from infantry, armor and special operations^[17] backgrounds -- jobs that opened to women only a decade ago.

"It's going to take a long time to see if the Army senior ranks will better reflect the number of women serving," a senior Army official told Military.com.

Meanwhile, the Army's recruiting efforts have been largely buoyed by a consistent interest from women in enlisting as men have become increasingly ineligible for service. Male enlistments have dropped 35%^[18] in the last decade.

Despite the service's recruiting struggles, women have continued to enlist at a steady rate of roughly 10,000 per year, on average, according to internal service data.

The reliance on women to fill the military ranks^[19] is likely to continue into the future.

Studies have shown a troubling trend in U.S. education: Boys are falling behind girls in nearly every academic category, including reading and writing. That achievement gap starts in elementary school and often widens over time. Many of the service's recruiting woes are tied to applicants performing poorly on the military's academic entrance exam.

By high school, boys are less likely to graduate on time compared to their female peers, and the differences are even more pronounced among male minorities. Moreover, young men have been consistently falling out of the labor market and are more likely to have criminal records, which can also make them ineligible for service.

Related: 'These Are Human Beings': VA Fires 1,400 More Employees It Considers Nonessential^[20]

John Phelan, a businessman with no prior experience in the military or defense policy whom President Donald Trump tapped to be Navy^[1] secretary, said Thursday he will lean on his business experience to fulfill Trump's priority of "shipbuilding, shipbuilding, shipbuilding."

Speaking at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Phelan made clear that Trump has an outsized interest in the Navy, saying at least three separate times that the president has already contacted him late at night to complain about rusty ships even though he is not secretary yet.

"Please don't give that to President Trump because I'll get a text at like 1 a.m. in the morning," Phelan said after Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., displayed a poster of a rusty guided missile destroyer.

Read Next: Military Spouses Fired in Trump's Government Purge Seek Answers, Reinstatement^[2]

"It's terrible. I think they should be ashamed. Would you want to go on that ship?" Phelan added about his own reaction to the rust.

Unlike other hearings for Pentagon nominees in the Trump administration, Thursday's hearing was mostly fireworks-free and focused on core service issues, suggesting Phelan will sail to confirmation.

Still, a couple of Democrats pressed Phelan to account for controversial actions by the Trump administration, including the recent firing of Adm. Lisa Franchetti as chief of naval operations^[3], a planned mass firing of 5,400 civilian Pentagon employees^[4], and reported plans to slash the defense budget^[5] by 8% each year for the next five years.

Phelan largely demurred on those issues, arguing he is not privy to decision-making yet since he hasn't been confirmed. But he agreed with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., in general that the military should not be politicized.

"I don't believe politicization should be in the military, and I don't believe those actions were politicization, but I don't know," Phelan said. "Again, I wasn't part of them, and I have not had any discussions around them."

If confirmed, Phelan would be the top civilian in charge of both the Navy and Marine Corps^[6], with responsibility for the health and well-being of more than 1 million sailors, Marines, reservists and civilian personnel and managing an annual budget of more than $250 billion.

Phelan's professional background is as an investment banker. He currently serves as chairman of Rugger Management LLC, an investment firm he founded, and he was previously the co-founder and managing partner of MSD Capital, the private investment firm for Michael Dell, founder and CEO of Dell Technologies.

Phelan was a major donor to Trump and Republicans in the 2024 elections. Among other political donations, he contributed $834,600 to Trump's joint fundraising committee in April, and days after the election, on Nov. 10, chipped in another $93,300, Federal Election Commission records show.

His only nexus with military policy has been sitting on the board of a nonprofit organization called Spirit of America, which, according to its website^[7], has "an agreement with the Department of Defense that allows U.S. troops to collaborate with us to build goodwill and deliver assistance at scale."

From the outset of the hearing Thursday, Phelan sought to reassure any senators who may be wary of his lack of experience.

"I understand why some may question why a businessman who did not wear the uniform should lead the Navy," he said in his opening statement. "I respect that concern. The Navy and the Marine Corps already possess extraordinary operational expertise within their ranks. My role is to utilize that expertise and strengthen it, to step outside the status quo and take decisive action with a results-oriented approach."

But, rather than see his inexperience as a liability, senators in both parties expressed optimism that bringing in an outsider could help turn around problems the Navy has faced for years, such as shipbuilding programs that run years over schedule and billions of dollars over budget.

"You're a nontraditional appointee for this position, and that can be OK if the tradition is not working," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told Phelan after highlighting a government watchdog report released the same morning^[8] of the hearing that was highly critical of the Navy's shipbuilding and repair efforts. "I think the punch line in this report is the tradition isn't working."

Related: Trump Picks Big Donor with Background in Finance and Little Experience with the Military for Navy Secretary^[9]