Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s dismissal of the top lawyers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force signals a shift towards a more aggressive military approach, prioritizing a “warrior ethos” over legal constraints. Hegseth, who believes the military has become too soft and bureaucratic, has expressed frustration with laws of armed conflict, arguing they hinder battlefield effectiveness. The sudden firings of the judge advocate generals raised concerns among military officials about potential disregard for legal advice. Hegseth’s views on engaging in combat, including justifying controversial pardons for troops, challenge established military principles and raise alarm over the future of military legal standards.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s choice to terminate the chief legal officers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force marks a significant step in his efforts to transform the military into a more aggressive entity on the battlefield, potentially with fewer constraints imposed by the laws of armed conflict.
During his time at the Pentagon and in meetings with military personnel last week in Europe, Mr. Hegseth has consistently emphasized the necessity of reviving a “warrior ethos” in a military he believes has softened, become engrossed in social justice issues, and grown increasingly bureaucratic over the last twenty years.
His choice to appoint new judge advocate generals — generally three-star officers — highlights how he envisions the ethos he intends to instill.
These dismissals were part of a larger initiative by Mr. Hegseth and President Trump, who also dismissed Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the highest-ranking military official, alongside the Navy’s first female leader and the Air Force’s vice chief of staff.
In contrast, the three judge advocate generals, often referred to as “JAGs,” hold significantly less prominent positions. Within the Pentagon and on global battlefields, military lawyers do not make critical decisions; their role is to provide independent legal guidance to senior military officials, ensuring compliance with U.S. law and armed conflict regulations.
According to senior Pentagon officials, Mr. Hegseth has not interacted with any of the discharged military lawyers since his appointment. Additionally, none of the three — Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, Vice Adm. Christopher C. French, and Rear Adm. Lia M. Reynolds — were mentioned in the Pentagon’s statement regarding their removal from military service after years of service.
A senior military figure with insight into the firings revealed that the lawyers had received “zero heads up” about their dismissal, indicating that the leadership in the Army, Navy, and Air Force was also blindsided.
The abrupt dismissals raised widespread alarms. “In some respects, that’s even more unsettling than firing the four stars,” Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown Law professor, commented on X. “It’s a tactic one employs when planning to disregard the law: remove any lawyers who might impede your actions.”
The firings do not appear to stem from a specific conflict but rather align with Mr. Hegseth’s perspective on why the U.S. military faced challenges achieving notable successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he has firsthand combat experience, and how he envisions military operations under his command.
In his recently published book, “The War on Warriors,” Mr. Hegseth criticizes military lawyers for enforcing overly stringent rules of engagement on combat troops, which he claims have repeatedly allowed the enemy to gain advantage on the battlefield.
Mr. Hegseth mockingly refers to these lawyers as “jagoffs” in the book. This terminology prompted Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island and West Point alum, to question Mr. Hegseth at a confirmation hearing about his capability to effectively lead the military after belittling it.
Mr. Hegseth’s portrayal of this timeframe in his book contrasts with the real processes governing battlefield rules of engagement during the wars. Senior officers in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, believed that civilian fatalities were alienating local populations from U.S. forces and bolstering the enemy. Consequently, these leaders prioritized civilian protection, even if it increased risks for U.S. troops.
Ultimately, the rules of engagement were determined by battlefield commanders rather than the legal advisors. The principle — “lawyers advise, and commanders decide” — is fundamental to the training of military lawyers, as current and former JAG officers assert.
Mr. Hegseth’s perspectives on wartime laws might also lead to discord with some of the senior military generals currently under his command.
In his book, he articulates ongoing dissatisfaction with the international laws established post-World War II to regulate armed conflicts. “What do you do when your adversary disregards the Geneva Conventions?” he queries. “We never received a response. Just more war. More casualties. And no victory.”
For many senior leaders, the concept of the “warrior ethos” extends beyond merely killing adversaries or winning conflicts. It also encapsulates principles such as discipline, honor, and respect for the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
“Combat can spiral out of control, and fighting can swiftly morph into murder when emotions escalate,” cautioned retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, who led U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The laws governing combat are intended to safeguard both civilians and troops from moral injury. Soldiers contemplate the adversaries and civilians they have killed “for the duration of their lives,” General Barno remarked, “and knowing they acted within an authorized framework defined by our country’s laws and armed conflict is profoundly significant.”
During Mr. Hegseth’s Senate confirmation hearing, legislators aimed to clarify his definition of “warrior ethos” and whether he believed U.S. forces should adhere to the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice even when adversaries disregard them.
His responses were frequently ambiguous. “An America First national security strategy will not relinquish its prerogatives to international entities dictating how our personnel operate on the battlefield,” Mr. Hegseth stated.
During the president’s initial term, Mr. Hegseth urged Mr. Trump to grant pardons to U.S. personnel accused or convicted of war crimes or murder resulting from their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In October 2019, Mr. Trump informed Mr. Hegseth of his decision to pardon two soldiers and a Navy SEAL, cases which Mr. Hegseth had advocated for months on his Fox television program.
The president concluded their conversation with a compliment that Mr. Hegseth noted he would “never forget and might inscribe on his gravestone.”
The president referred to him as a warrior, emphasizing his point with an expletive.
One of the granted pardons was for First Lt. Clint Lorance, who was reported by his own soldiers after ordering them to shoot at unarmed Afghans over 100 yards away from his position, resulting in their deaths. The soldier then sent a false radio report stating that the bodies had been removed and could not be searched for weapons.
The Army convicted Lieutenant Lorance of second-degree murder and additional charges, sentencing him to 19 years in prison. For Mr. Hegseth, the pardon bestowed upon Lieutenant Lorance epitomized justice. He argued that U.S. troops engaged in combat must be “the most ruthless, the most uncompromising, the most overwhelmingly lethal” force on the battlefield, as he stated in his writings last year.
“Our troops will err,” he asserted, “and when they do, they should receive the utmost benefit of the doubt.”
According to Pentagon officials, senior Army lawyers strongly opposed the decision to pardon Lieutenant Lorance. Among those most dissatisfied with the presidential pardon were the personnel who served under him and faced the difficult choice to accuse him of war crimes and testify at his trial.
“I viewed the Army as an altruistic institution,” remarked Lucas Gray, who served under Lieutenant Lorance in Afghanistan, to The Washington Post. “I believed it to be perfect and honorable. It pains me to acknowledge my naivety and stupidity.”
“The Lorance incident severely shattered my faith,” he continued, stating: “Once you lose your values and faith, the Army becomes just another job you despise.”