Charles Q. Brown, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks out on Trump.
The Military and the Republic
What America’s Armed Forces Can—and Cannot—Do for Democracy
Please consider The Military and the Republic by Charles Q. Brown, Jr., Peter D. Feaver, and Andrew Kragie, emphasis mine.
Celebrations of America’s founding and reflections on its ideals often overlook the central role of civil-military relations. This is a mistake. In the Declaration of Independence, a chief complaint was that King George III “affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” George Washington himself worried about this abuse of power and went to great pains to avoid it in his own career. Throughout the Revolutionary War, he constantly deferred to the Continental Congress despite its calamitous delays and erratic instructions, because he recognized that his authority over the Continental Army flowed from the people’s representatives.
The temptation for mission creep is understandable: the U.S. military is the most advanced in the world, with a budget two to three times that of its nearest competitor.
But when presidents use the armed forces for more politically contentious missions, such as addressing domestic crime in cities, the work of the military becomes more fraught. Resorting to a military solution rather than fixing the underlying incapacity or dysfunction in civilian institutions diverts the military from focusing on its primary combat mission. And, as Washington knew, it is not the military’s job to save the republic from political impasses. Indeed, if you ask too much of the military, you risk the entire enterprise.
The Modern Patriot
Those who asked General Washington to save the country from a dysfunctional Congress expected the military to fix something that was the duty of civilians to fix. A century and a half later, another general turned statesman, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, pointedly asked the political establishment—and ultimately the electorate—to save the country from the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.” In his farewell address, he warned about the risk of an increasingly powerful military industrial complex, saying, “We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” Like Washington, Eisenhower understood that the health of the republic depended on ordinary civilians exercising their political power and not outsourcing it to the military.
This lesson is critical today. Throughout this year of remembrance, the military has played an outsize ceremonial role. Asking the uniformed military to serve in an honor guard, lead a parade, or conduct stirring flyovers makes sense; the military excels at ceremony and provides a unifying symbol, and these acts help citizens look with pride on the republic’s capacity for strength and resilience. They may even inspire some to join the ranks of the all-volunteer force. But they should not be seen as a military monopoly on patriotism.
Charles Q. Brown Warns the Military Is Being Politicized
The Wall Street Journal comments Former Top General Warns the Military Is Being Politicized
In an essay published Friday with two co-authors, Brown cautioned that sending the military into American cities for “politically contentious missions” like fighting crime risked compromising its traditionally apolitical role and diverting it from its combat mission.
His essay in Foreign Affairs magazine followed an appearance the previous week when he voiced concerns about the Pentagon’s moves to strike officers from military promotion lists and push high-ranking personnel into retirement.
“What is starting to happen now, it is not about merit,” Brown said at a discussion of civil-military relations hosted by the Aspen Institute. “All of these people who are being removed are very well experienced.”
His comments came as panelists at the discussion addressed efforts by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his aides to remove officers from promotion lists and push others toward retirement, such as Gen. Chris Donahue, who officially relinquished his post Thursday as the top Army officer in Europe after the Pentagon downgraded his command.
Known for speaking in measured terms, Brown has sought to strike a nonpartisan stance, noting in his essay that both Democratic and Republican presidents have expanded the military’s domestic role during periods of national crisis, such as the Covid-19 pandemic.
His careful comments stand in contrast to the blunt words of Gen. Mark Milley, his predecessor as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who said in his 2023 exit speech that American troops take an oath to the Constitution and don’t report to a “wannabe dictator,” a reference to Trump, who was then out of office and had previously called Milley a traitor.
But Brown’s message was still clear, including his apparent concerns about Trump’s deployment during his second term of thousands of troops to Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Chicago and other cities in a public show of force the White House said was needed to fight lawlessness. Following a series of legal challenges, the Trump administration ended its efforts to deploy the National Guard in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore. But National Guard members are still on patrol in Washington, D.C.
“In the face of a genuine national disaster, the public will readily embrace the military’s help,” Brown wrote in his essay. “But when presidents use the armed forces for more politically contentious missions, such as addressing domestic crime in cities, the work of the military becomes more fraught.”
Hegseth, in his 2024 book “The War on Warriors,” questioned whether Brown was selected for the top military post because he was Black.
In February 2025, Hegseth called Brown while he was in Texas to review the administration’s border mission to tell him he was being removed. Trump later announced the decision in a social-media post.
In his Aspen Institute appearance, Brown said the Pentagon’s approach to personnel decisions was spurring doubts in the ranks. “My concern is the impact it has on those who are still continuing to serve. Are they going to have a fair opportunity to advance in their career going forward?” he asked. “Anecdotally, I know some folks that have some concerns about that, whether they are going to have a fair shot.”
The Big Threat
My concern goes far beyond military personnel having a fair shot at advancing.
What’s happening now is both clear and ominous.
Hegseth is removing top military generals on one basis only – loyalty to Trump.
When Trump loses Congress in the Midterm elections, and he will, Trump wants military officers who will carry out any and all illegal orders.
Q: Such as?
A: Seizing ballots
That is the threat. And the course is being plotted.
That’s not a prediction, but the groundwork is being laid as I type.
‘Send them to Iran’: Trump spokeswoman issues dire assessment of ‘lazy’ Gen Zers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/karoline-leavitt-gen-z-fox-news-b3008479.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-gb
I suppose if one of those jackasses condemned a Democratic Party president, you would be telling us how the military should stay out of politics.
Like how he should be telling you to stay out of little kids’ pants “little hussies”?
enjoy the song of summer! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FEV-zK06fUA
You never served so you have no idea what you are talking about. What General Brown said is spot on – I swore an oath to the Constitution, not to a king or a president. An officer’s duty is also focused on defense of the nation, not on policing the civilian population. There is 250 years of precedence on this, and it is not a Democratic or Republican matter, it is a foundational characteristic of the American experiment.
I also voted very Republican for most of my life – until trump that is. An officer’s duty is to the country as embodied in the Constitution. You really need to stop making ill-informed comments because you are either ignorant or else there is something seriously wrong with you.
Or both
oh I know lets have a Parade like last year
The TACO king and foreign queen
did so want a birthday parade
with beautiful tanks and solders who prance
right down the promenade
but our soldiers fight they dont prance
our tanks are just tanks
and millions came out to show
Americas might comes
from our laws and our rights
and our great dislike of kings you know.
To be fair, Trump doesn’t have a choice. In a zero-sum, no-holds-barred, winner-take-all game like contemporary US politics, either you use all the power available to you to harm your enemies, or your enemies will use it to harm you.
We saw a similar dynamic in the fall of the Roman Republic.
That may be right, but it would be nice if some politician would just do what’s right and honest for once. I can dream, right? Trump is far too ignoble. Massie tried his best. He was defeated by the forces of evil, but he’s leaving with his honor.
Massie got close, and the Israelis took him out.
Like JFK and Charlie Kirk.
This sentiment is exactly what may cause the downfall of the republic. Instead of advocating for authoritarianism because “the other side does it”, advocate for politicians to apply principle. When Weimar germany disintegrated it was because of political, then street, battles between the communists and the nazis. The center slowly became hollowed out as they were picked off and forced to join one or the other side. Don’t be seduced by the siren’s call for revenge. It leads to darkness.
I agree with the gist of what Brown is saying. If he was hired for being black, well, Hegsdeath was hired for being an imbecile. I don’t think Trump has the ability to mess with the midterms. Too complicated. Hope I’m right. A quibble: the strength of the American military should not be assessed by the fact that we spend 2-3 times our nearest competitor. If the “defense” contractors doubled their prices, would we be twice as strong? The U.S. government is good at dropping bombs and mailing checks. Not everything can be accomplished by those means.
And when a democrat president gets in he/she will need to “make right” all the wrongs of the Trump administration so they will institute DEI on steroids. And we’ll go through 4/8 years of that and then the country collapses.
Got exit strategy?
So they’ll… Recruit black people? On steroids?
Nothing wrong with inclusion or diversity. Requiring that 13% of pilots or brain surgeons be black is as dumb as requiring that 57% of the NBA be white.
I expect him to make a move to reject many votes. He’s trying a number of approaches, all unconstitutional but that doesn’t mean much.
A lot of people look forward to killing their neighbor to cleanse the nation in the name of America, trump, and God. This will be the excuse they need.
Do they? Well, I’ve got a surprise for Cleatus Cousinfucker…
Appreciate the concerns and there is validity. However, the military was already politicized. Two and a half years ago under the Biden husk a well-known military family locally told me how their award winning Army son had quit the service. (He was due to re-up) Turns out when visiting a DC office he had addressed and mistakenly “mis-gendered” a “woman” officer. (In reality, a male). This led to an hour or two of berating by the hissy-fitting officer. When the family’s son aired concerns about this to higher brass, he was told in essence “we’re backing the higher-ranked officer, period…diversity, equity, blah blah”. He tendered his resignation. The military did everything possible to bring him back in, $125,000 re-signing bonus, the works. He still refused, telling them the institution was no longer a true fighting force. Pretty sure he went in with some MIC contractor. Not a fan of Hegseth, but I’m understanding what he was put in place to fix. That being said, we’re looking a a serious case of mission creep.
Certainly bad if that happened. But it’s about scale; and the purge trump has done of high ranking officers that would serve the nation, not trump, is at an entirely different scale than what Biden might have done. Biden was ineffective and too old. Trumps is actively trying to break down democracy. The difference in danger should be obvious.
I don’t see how that means it was “politicized”. Was it politicized when they let blacks and females into the military? You might thing females or non- whites weaken the military, but no one is asking you to support a political party instead of the constitution.
Ones sex and race are immutable characteristics. People who try to change surgically what can’t actually be changed are mentally ill. I’m sure you disagree. In any case, you really can’t fault a guy for looking upon one of these sad creatures and instinctively, inadvertently addressing them with the pronoun of their real sex. I mean c’mon. Let’s get real.
There are men who think the way women think and consider themselves female and vice-versa. That is an immutable fact, and it is well understood why this happens. The mother’s body secretes a variety of male and female hormones that wash over the growing embryo. If the wrong set of hormones are produced at critical stages of brain development, you end up with people with this condition. It is common enough that cultures in south east asia have long considered there to be more than two sexes to account for this fact.
Our culture’s rejection of these folks does cause a mental health condition for a lot of these people though. A psychiatrist friend of mine who has done some research on the issue does say it causes a lot of distress for these folks because our culture tries to force them into either a pure male or female role, neither of which they are capable of achieving. He told me that people who attempt to transition to the other sex never happens in societies that simply accept the diversity of sexual orientation.
Whatever. The guy in Bill Meyer’s story accidentally called a guy a guy. It could happen to the best of us, even if we try our best to use their preferred pronoun. No matter how open minded people try to be, most people see a man in a dress. It is what it is. Also, why are they usually about 6’4”?
Well seeing as they’re happily talking shit about a black general, it clearly still is politicized to them. How dare that black man sit at the same table as us, that’s not warrior ethos!
This sounds like a very real story seeing as there are only a handful of trans people in the entire military even then. Sounds like their “award winning army son” needed a convenient excuse to get out. I’m willing to bet none of his awards were from combat either.
“babies”, “bathwater”
I would tell you that such a move is too stupid to be considered by any reasonable person, no matter how corrupt, but then you have Trump.
As far as I’m concerned Trump is so out to lunch he thinks elections are a formality. He’s said as much himself repeatedly this year. This means he’s also far enough out of his gourd to put together how bad of an idea it would be to ask the military to overthrow elections in a country where he’s approved by 35-37% of the population, most of whom are over 65.
Not even to mention the logistical issues of trying to control every major economic center, all of which hate you and all of which are located very far apart.
I don’t expect these plans to go far, I’ll tell you that.
Think of how stupid the average frustrated citizen is. He’ll talk about “freedom” but when you ask him what that means, it means “you can buy lots of stuff if your credit card is good”.
Give them Cheez Doodles and instatok, and they’ll be happy as clams.
Except they’re not happy right now and can’t buy stuff so this comment makes no sense.
It is not the service member that should be making challenges by any means, it should be our representatives via legislation or courts or potentially impeachment.
Hope this is the first of many. Time for a change before it is too late.
I hope you’re wrong about plans to have the military sieze ballots, but I see the same thing!
People were rushed to high brass because for anything, except their merits and accomplishments. The military has been political since ever.
Obligatory: and the Usonian military has won no war, all of choice, since the Great Colonial War part II.
I’m not even a fan of our bloated military but this claim always fails to recall the Gulf War we won easily because Bush Sr. knew when to go home. Blame his dipstick son for the mess in the middle east.
The United States army has been the finest fighting force in the world up until Trump destroyed it, unfortunately it was shackled at the hip to the most inept and corrupt government the free world has ever seen. Vietnam was known to be unwinnable from a military angle before the conflict even started. Just like with Iran, those warnings were ignored by a political class whose wives happened to all be on the Bell helicopter board of directors. GWOT shows the same story of a military hamstrung by a political class only interested in making a profit by keeping the war going.
It is no wonder that now the final nail is going into the coffin as that venomous political caste looks to bring their forever war to the streets of your town.
Iran Is a Bigger Defeat Than Vietnam
https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/06/16/iran-vietnam-strategy-defeat/
True, but mainly because the Iran war laid bare the already-existing fact that the U.S. cannot and will not defend its “allies” (vassals) nearly to the extent they had believed. Taiwan?
You’re absolutely right re: corruption. Our MIC is built for profit, not combat effectiveness U.S. military has been heading towards technological obsolescence for decades. It is neither equipped nor trained to deal with new realities of warfare. The Gulf War was won easily in 1991 because we faced a much weaker adversary. But even then there were warning signs of hubris. Patriot systems were touted to be highly effective but in actuality they had trouble dealing with the primitive Scud missiles. Fast forward to today and while upgraded, Patriot has little effectiveness against the barrages of ballistic and hypersonic weaponry by either Iran or Russia (see analysis by Ted Postol re: low single digit intercept rates). Now even our carrier groups are being challenged, forced to remain hundreds of miles offshore to avoid drone/missile threats. That was once unthinkable.
It’s easy to fall into a mindset based on exceptionalism. I came of age around the time of the Gulf War, and CNN put on a real show of military dominance. The USSR was already collapsing and at the time there was no one to rival our military power. I wish I had been better informed leading up to the 2003 Iraq War. I trusted Colin Powell, and by extension military leadership. The debacle that followed was a reminder that we are not all powerful, but it seems blame was pinned on Dubya/Cheney/Powell with no mind paid to rot that was continuing underneath. Meanwhile, other countries did not stay rooted in old doctrine. Under Putin, Russia continued focus on air defense as well as new missile delivery systems, while Iran studied how U.S./Israel conducted warfare and built vast underground missile complexes.
Now it all comes to a head : shock as people wake up to a new reality. Not only can the U.S. no longer project power anywhere, everywhere, and all at once, but can be resisted and pushed back.
Defensive systems are becoming more powerful than offensive systems. That will be the story of the rest of this century. It will spell the end of countries as great military powers. And it will be felt most keenly by hyper- patriotic Americans.
How so? It seems that defense is already difficult and increasingly so due to continued advancements in missile capabilities and now drone warfare. Russia has the most advanced air defenses, but despite counters to drones has had difficultly getting that problem under control. The problem for the U.S. is that it appears to continue to make the wrong investments, choosing to build ever more costly and complex platforms which do not address fundamental needs.
The fundamental issue is cost. Offensive weapons are increasingly expensive, and are increasingly easily defeated by inexpensive defensive systems. A $6 billion aircraft carrier can be taken out by a barrage of $100,000 rockets. A $2 million tank can be taken out by a $1,000 drone. The F-35 has to be built at $250 million a pop because older systems were easily defeated by far less expensive air defense systems.
The problem is the US is making investments in offensive systems designed to win land, sea and air campaigns. But increasingly even weak countries will be able to afford to defeat those offensive systems. The US should pivot to making defensive systems on a mass scale at far lower cost (like Ukraine). But then we can’t impose our will on other countries.
Not only can we not project power but we’d be really weak against a first class conventional longe range missile and drone power of which there are two of and the U.S. is not one of them.
Regardless of the other people in these comments, the real issue is that the modern US has no plans to fight a popular war. This has made the US military obsessed with casualty avoidance because they know damn well no one wants to fight in Iran.
Our military is still technically superior, but that means nothing when it’s heading into a war none of its troops are motivated to carry on with. If America were attacked, we could clobber any opponent with ease. Unfortunately for us, no one wants to attack us and even our enemies are happy to leave us alone on our personal continent. This means all of the theory has to go into ways of fighting wars with a coerced army who has no heart in the conflict.
Said wars never have any scope like WW2 and previous did, this is another factor. In WW2 the idea was to defeat Germany and Japan, very sensible. In the Gulf War we set out to remove Saddam’s army from Kuwait. We did that and left. Then suddenly in Afghanistan it was to destroy an intangible group that may or may not still exist at any time while also building their infrastructure and bringing democracy to a people who kept telling us in no uncertain terms that they did not want that. Or take Vietnam, who we couldn’t invade without bringing China in. What was the win condition? Magically toppling the north via bombing?
We have the tools to win wars in spades, it’s the ability to use them properly we lack.
Even if our troops were motivated as hell, we couldn’t conquer Iran. The logistics alone would be impossible.
The military wins plenty of wars, once you realize that the stated objective is rarely the real objective.