The bedrock principle of an apolitical military, a cornerstone of American democracy, is under unprecedented assault. In a searing new op-ed published today in Foreign Affairs, General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a powerful and timely indictment of the Trump administration’s egregious politicization of the armed forces. His criticisms, coming less than two years after his own politically motivated firing, illuminate a deeply concerning pattern that progressive voices have warned about for years: the deliberate erosion of civil-military relations in favor of unquestioning loyalty and partisan missions. This isn’t merely a debate over policy; it’s a fight for the soul of our republic and the very institutions designed to protect it.
The Current Reality
General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the second Black man to hold America’s most senior military position, was summarily dismissed in February 2025 by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a key architect of the Trump administration’s military overhaul. His removal was part of a sweeping purge that has seen more than 20 top officers fired or pushed aside since President Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, a move characterized by critics as prioritizing political allegiance over merit and experience.
Today, Brown, alongside co-authors Peter Feaver and Andrew Kragie, published “The Military and the Republic What America’s Armed Forces Can—and Cannot—Do for Democracy” in Foreign Affairs. The op-ed sharply criticizes the use of the military for “politically contentious missions, such as addressing domestic crime in cities,” arguing that such deployments divert forces from their primary combat roles and fail to address underlying civilian institutional failures. Brown unequivocally states, “It is not the military’s job to save the republic from political impasses,” drawing historical parallels to George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower to underscore the long-held tradition of civilian control and an apolitical military.
This recent publication follows Brown’s earlier expressions of concern at the Aspen Institute last week, where he lamented the ongoing wave of officer firings, noting that “What’s starting to happen now is not about merit” and questioning the future career opportunities for those still serving. Defense Secretary Hegseth, in response, has dismissed these critiques, asserting that “Law and order is something all Americans deserve” and denying any ideological or political motivations behind the deployments or personnel decisions. Hegseth himself has a history of questioning military leadership, even suggesting in his 2024 book, “The War on Warriors,” whether Brown’s selection was due to his race.
A Progressive Critique
The Trump administration’s ongoing campaign to reshape the U.S. military, exemplified by the firing of General Brown and numerous other seasoned leaders, represents a grave threat to democratic governance. This isn’t merely about ideological differences; it’s a deliberate attempt to dismantle the institutional safeguards that prevent the armed forces from becoming a personal instrument of political power. The notion that “loyalty” to a president, rather than adherence to the Constitution and professional military ethics, should be the paramount qualification for top brass is deeply authoritarian and fundamentally un-American.
The deployment of military personnel for domestic law enforcement, particularly in politically charged contexts like “clamping down on crime in major cities,” blurs the critical lines between civilian and military roles. It not only militarizes societal problems that demand social, economic, and political solutions but also risks alienating the military from the very populace it is sworn to protect. This approach is a dangerous distraction from the root causes of crime—poverty, inequality, and systemic underinvestment in communities—which progressive policies aim to address.
Furthermore, the wholesale removal of diverse and experienced flag officers, including the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, under the guise of purging “woke” elements, undermines both the strength and representative nature of our armed forces. It sends a chilling message that dissent or even adherence to professional, apolitical conduct will not be tolerated, fostering an environment of fear and discouraging critical thinking within the ranks. This “loyalty test” risks hollowing out the military’s intellectual and operational capacity, replacing it with a compliant force susceptible to political manipulation. This isn’t strengthening the military; it’s weakening democracy.
The Path Forward
Protecting the apolitical nature of the U.S. military requires a vigorous and unified progressive response. First, we must demand absolute transparency and accountability for the firing of military leaders. Congress must utilize its oversight powers to investigate these dismissals thoroughly, ensuring that merit and constitutional fidelity, not political fealty, dictate military leadership. Independent bodies must also be empowered to review and challenge any executive actions that appear to politicize the armed forces.
Second, a renewed emphasis on civic education is crucial, reinforcing the importance of civilian control of the military and the constitutional oath sworn by service members. Progressive organizations and community leaders should advocate for policies that invest in robust civilian institutions—education, social services, economic development, and justice reform—to address societal challenges, thereby reducing any manufactured pretext for military intervention in domestic affairs. We must champion solutions that empower communities, rather than those that rely on military force.
Finally, we must actively defend and promote diversity, equity, and inclusion within all branches of government, including the military. A professional force that reflects the rich tapestry of the nation is more resilient, adaptable, and less susceptible to the narrow ideological agendas of political actors. The defense of our democracy depends not on a politicized military, but on a strong, independent, and professional armed force dedicated solely to the Constitution, coupled with a robust citizenry committed to upholding its democratic ideals. The time to act against this authoritarian creep is now.