Unlike his first term effort to laud “my generals” straight out of “central casting” and would “keep us so safe,” President Donald Trump has taken a different tack toward the military during his second administration. Eschewing previous attempts to work with existing leadership — many of whom ultimately earned prime positions on the president’s growing list of perceived enemies — Trump has instead opted for a more wholesale approach this time around, replacing top Pentagon brass and, alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, working to change the way America goes to war. Capitalizing on his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief to oversee a military more to his liking, here is how Trump’s plans to remake the armed forces are transforming one of the nation’s foundational institutions.
‘Quiet but seismic recalibration’
During his short tenure atop the Pentagon, Hegseth has so far focused on creating a military that is “more aggressive on the battlefield” while being “potentially less hindered by the laws of armed conflict,” The New York Times said. Hegseth has “prioritized the ‘lethality’ of the armed forces by ‘reviving warrior ethos'” on Trump’s behalf, The Hill said. To that end, Hegseth has engaged in a “quiet but seismic recalibration” by “broadening the range of people who can be targeted” in airstrikes and special operations raids, CBS News said — a move that “signals a return to more aggressive counterterrorism policies” like those from Trump’s first term.
Beyond merely expanding the rules of engagement for certain types of combat operations, Hegseth is also planning a “sweeping overhaul of the judge advocate general’s corps” to further make the Pentagon “less restricted by the laws of armed conflict,” The Guardian said. By also “retraining military lawyers,” they can then “provide more expansive legal advice to commanders” regarding “more aggressive tactics” and a “more lenient approach in charging soldiers with battlefield crimes.”
‘Roadblocks’ or a ‘role model for other nations’?
Hegseth has vociferously defended his decision to fire a suite of Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) attorneys last month, insisting they might pose “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.” Crucially, JAG officials merely advise commanders on the potential legalities of a given situation, rather than participate in enacting and following through on orders. Given Trump’s “history of suggesting that he would use troops against U.S. citizens despite federal legal restrictions,” Military.com said, the traditionally apolitical JAG Corps could soon find itself “at the center of such historic and consequential legal decisions.”
“My fear is there will be officers in the room that say, ‘sure, we will shoot them in the legs,'” said Rear Adm. James McPherson (Ret.) to PBS Newshour, referencing Trump’s alleged push for protesters to be shot during the 2020 George Floyd demonstrations. Sometimes a JAG attorney has to be a “roadblock if someone desires to do something illegal,” said former Navy JAG and Emory University Law Professor Mark Nevitt to NPR.
More intangibly, any perceived politicization of the JAG corps could permanently alter the reputation of a group that has “often been a role model for other nations,” said Military.com. The corps has garnered “great respect and even deference to U.S. perspectives on the law when working with allies and partners.”