Is the Pentagon Going ROGUE?
Erosion of civilian oversight is threatening the U.S. military’s foundational apolitical stance, with internal dissent and policy deference signaling deeper cracks in democratic control.
At a Glance
Civilian control of the military faces growing challenges
High-ranking officers dismissed over alleged insubordination
DEI initiatives spark tension within military culture
Experts warn of democratic erosion via policy deference
Solutions include stronger discipline and civic education
Erosion by Deference
The long-standing tradition of civilian authority over the military is facing what some scholars call “erosion by deference.” According to the Texas National Security Review, civilian leaders across multiple administrations have increasingly relied on military figures to shape policy. This trend, visible during the presidencies of Trump, Obama, and Bush, shifts decision-making power from elected officials to uniformed officers—undermining democratic norms and accountability.
High public confidence in the military, contrasted with skepticism toward elected officials, contributes to this dynamic. During the Trump administration, the president’s own language—referring to “my generals”—and frequent reliance on senior officers in policymaking roles, like Gen. Jim Mattis as Defense Secretary, blurred institutional boundaries between military command and civil authority.
Watch The Atlantic Council’s report on the incident at Civil-Military Relations: An Unequal Dialogue.
Insubordination in the Ranks
Recent cases have raised alarms over rising insubordination within the armed forces. As reported by The Federalist, several senior officers, including Navy Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, were relieved of duty for behavior interpreted as politically motivated or defiant of civilian command. The article describes a “massive resentment” within some military circles toward elected leaders, calling it a “cancer” threatening democratic integrity.
The challenge is compounded by internal military debates around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While intended to foster inclusivity, some argue these programs politicize the ranks and conflict with the military’s nonpartisan ethos. Critics suggest that embedding political values into military culture fosters dissent, particularly when those values are seen as aligned with one party over another.
The DEI Debate
Col. Todd Schmidt’s analysis in Military Review highlights growing discomfort among military leaders regarding DEI initiatives, seen by some as ideologically driven and compromising the military’s core identity. This debate intensified under Trump, who aimed to reduce “woke doctrines” in military training. Researcher Polina Beliakova warns that merging political ideologies with military structure risks undermining discipline and eroding civilian control, as the military may be perceived as a political actor.
Rebuilding the Wall
To reverse these trends, experts recommend strengthening constitutional education throughout military ranks. Programs should emphasize the chain of command, the supremacy of elected civilian leaders, and the legal limits of military autonomy. Enforcing Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—which prohibits contemptuous speech against officials—could also help restore order.
Public trust in the military remains high, but that trust is contingent on the institution remaining nonpartisan. As Beliakova notes, a military that engages in policymaking risks becoming an unaccountable political force. Ensuring clarity in roles and enforcing accountability could prevent further drift from democratic norms.
Watch Defense News’s report on civil-military tensions at Who Really Runs the Pentagon?.