Senior officers in the U.S. military are preparing after reports of a potential new review process for top generals, a review they fear will vet personal loyalty to President-elect Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported[1] on a draft executive order that is under consideration by the Trump transition team that would establish a so-called "warrior board," to review top generals over whether they should continue service or not, and whether they lack certain leadership qualities.
The proposal mirrors calls from conservative think tanks, lawmakers and Trump to weed out what they call "woke" generals -- broadly defined as officials who have promoted diversity in the ranks or supported taking vaccinations.
While the exact details of the proposed review board were unclear -- including who would serve as the arbiters of a general's leadership, though they would be appointed directly by the White House and would be veterans -- the senior uniformed military community immediately responded with concern that their commitment to avoiding politics would not be able to hold.
"The military is run by civilians, but the politics are supposed to stay outside," one currently serving Army[3] lieutenant general told Military.com. "It could be very hard to do our job if we have to constantly be making sure we're appeasing someone on a political or partisan level."
Senior officers and Pentagon officials interviewed expressed concerns about the ease with which generals who fall out of favor with Trump could find themselves under scrutiny.
Most senior leaders have, at some point in their careers, publicly praised diversity as a virtue in meetings or at events -- particularly as women and those from minority groups have gained more prominent roles within the ranks in recent years and as the country that provides the military's recruiting[4] pool has become more racially diverse. Many have likely signed memorandums or sent out emails to their formations emphasizing the importance of vaccines.
The creation of a separate review process reporting directly to Trump that is outside of the existing job performance system could impose a chilling loyalty test -- not to the Constitution or military code, but to a president known for prioritizing personal loyalty, currently serving generals and defense officials interviewed say.
One two-star Army general noted that the administration's stance could instill fear around hiring minority or LGBTQ staff, with promotions of soldiers from certain backgrounds potentially facing heightened scrutiny. This atmosphere of suspicion, the official warned, risks stifling diversity within the ranks and creating a hierarchy where personal backgrounds become a factor in career advancement -- a stark departure from the military's commitment to merit-based progression.
"I think moving forward, if someone is moved into a position and they don't have a certain ... let's say ... look, there could be hesitation," the major general said on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation. "Or people are going to ask, 'Hey, are we sure,' because it could bring unwanted attention from the White House."
The Trump transition team's draft on restructuring the military cited Gen. George C. Marshall's "plucking board" as a key precedent. Established in 1940, Marshall's board was composed of retired officers who reviewed the performance of active-duty officers. The thought was that too many senior officers were sticking around, blocking younger and more promising officers from promotion.
The hyper-fixated look at perceived diversity efforts in the force had created concern even ahead of the news about the review boards, with some defense officials and senior officers concerned over whether Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown will be fired. Brown has spoken publicly about the challenges of climbing the ranks as a Black man[5]. One defense official said whether he's fired will be a "canary in the coal mine" and would immediately set "a really bad tone" for the Trump administration's relationship with the Pentagon.
During the Biden administration, Republicans in Congress have used military policies and actions of officers they label as "woke" as leverage to block or delay promotions. Col. Ben Jonsson, an Air Force[6] officer nominated to one-star general, saw his promotion blocked by Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., using procedural tactics due to Jonsson writing an op-ed[7] about racial blind spots in the military.
The Pentagon has historically insisted that service members remain staunchly apolitical, with specific regulations surrounding wearing the uniform as part of political activity, even as politically appointed civilian leadership often looks at national security through a political lens.
"I never worried about what political party someone was in; it never occurred to me," Paul Eaton, a retired infantry major general and head of the liberal veterans group VoteVets, told Military.com. "It could be very divisive to the [military]; it'll create mistrust."
