Trump’s firings of military leaders pose a crucial question to service members of all ranks

President Donald Trump gave no specific reason for firing Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff less than halfway through Brown’s four-year term in office.

Nor did he give an explanation for similarly ousting other senior military leaders, including the only women ever to lead the Navy and the Coast Guard, as well as the military’s top three lawyers – the judge advocates general of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

The president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. But since the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. I know this because I served 36 years in the U.S. Air Force before retiring as a major general. Even now, as a lecturer in history, national security and constitutional law, I know that nonpartisanship is central to the military’s primary mission of defending the country.

Trump’s actions could raise concerns about whether he is trying to change those centuries of precedent.

If so, military personnel at all levels would face a crucial question: Would they stand up for the military’s independent role in maintaining the integrity and stability of American democracy or follow the president’s orders – even if those orders crossed a line that made them illegal or unconstitutional?

Political neutrality from the start

Washington and other U.S. founders were very aware that a powerful military could overthrow the government or be subjected to political whims as different parties or factions controlled the presidency or Congress, so they thought long and hard about the role of the militia and the use of military power.

Julius Caesar, who used his army to seize power in ancient Rome, was a cautionary tale. So was Oliver Cromwell’s use of his military power in the English Civil War to execute King Charles I and rule England.

One of Washington’s most significant contributions to the apolitical tradition of the military was his resignation as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army after the American Revolution officially ended, in 1783. By voluntarily giving up his military power and returning to civilian life, the man who would become the nation’s first president demonstrated his commitment to civilian control of a military grounded in allegiance to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not allegiance to any one party, faction or person.

Washington’s act set a powerful example for future generations. A few years later, the founders embedded civilian control over the military in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war and fund armies, while Article II, Section 2 designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the military.

This check and balance ensures the military remains neutral and subordinate to elected leaders. It also solidifies the allegiance of military leaders to a principled document, not to the ebbs and flows of politics.

Training and response to orders

Polling consistently shows that the American people trust the military more than any other element of the U.S. government. In part that trust comes from the military’s professional dedication to political neutrality, which includes training its personnel to uphold values like duty, honor and integrity.

Military members up and down the ranks take their allegiance to the Constitution seriously. At the beginning of their service, at every reenlistment and usually during promotion ceremonies, all military members – officers and enlisted – swear to support and defend the Constitution. The enlisted oath also includes a promise to follow the lawful orders of the president and of the officers appointed above them.

This foundational oath ensures that if members of the military receive orders that they believe are questionable, they will not follow those orders blindly. They are taught throughout their career – during basic training, officer candidate training and in recurring sessions through the years – to seek clarification. If necessary, they are told to challenge those orders through their chain of command, or through attorneys associated with their units, or by contacting their branch’s inspector general.

Depending on their ranks, military members’ responses to questionable orders can vary. Senior officers, who have extensive experience and higher levels of responsibility, have the authority and the duty to ensure that any orders they follow or pass down are lawful and in line with the Constitution. When evaluating uncertain orders or navigating unclear situations, they often consult with legal advisers, discuss the implications with peers and thoroughly analyze the situation before taking action.

Junior officers and senior enlisted personnel often find themselves in positions where they must make quick decisions based on the information available to them. While they are trained to follow orders, they are also encouraged to use their judgment and seek guidance when they believe an order to be unlawful – including getting advice from people with direct access to attorneys.

Junior enlisted personnel, who make up more than 40% of the military force, are also taught the importance of the legality and constitutionality of orders. They have the right to seek clarification if they believe an order is unlawful.

Even so, their training focuses heavily on discipline and obedience. This can make it challenging for them to question orders, especially in high-pressure situations.

Ultimate responsibility

The responsibility of scrutinizing orders falls on senior military leaders – admirals and generals, colonels and Navy captains. Junior officers and senior enlisted and junior enlisted personnel rely on their leaders to navigate the complexities of politics and ensure orders they receive are lawful and focused on national defense, not politics.

If senior military leaders fail in their responsibility, chaos could ensue: Units may end up following conflicting orders or ignoring directives altogether. This can lead to a breakdown in command and control, with some units acting independently or based on politically motivated directives. This would be a dangerous shift, making the military extremely vulnerable to operational failures and enemy attack.

Such a situation has never happened in the history of the U.S. military. But some events have come close to crossing the line. For instance, during the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was determined to demonstrate American strength and resolve, famously stating, “I will not lose in Vietnam.” His pressure landed on the shoulders of Gen. William Westmoreland.

Westmoreland responded by publicizing the numbers of enemy personnel killed in battle, attempting to show that U.S. efforts were reducing the size of opposing forces. But historians have found that this emphasis lacked clear military objectives, meaning troops faced confusion and contradictory orders. The price was a longer war, and more deaths for Americans and for Vietnamese civilians.

Ultimately, Westmoreland was accused of manipulating enemy troop strength estimates to create an impression of progress – in service of Johnson’s political desire to avoid defeat. His decisions did not directly violate the Constitution or U.S. law, but they exemplify how political pressures can adversely influence military strategies, with devastating consequences.

Unbiased sources of information

In addition to senior military leaders’ responsibility to remain apolitical, leaders also have clear responsibilities to the civilians elected and appointed above them.

For example, the president needs factual and unbiased information about the military’s capabilities from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on their experience and professional opinions. If advisers are hesitant to speak freely about what is and is not possible in any given situation, and about potential consequences both good and bad, the president will miss out on the kinds of critical insights that shape effective strategies.

The bottom line is that when top military experts give advice and take action influenced by politics, they undermine the centuries-old system of military training and ethics. Some traditions are worth keeping.