SEVENTH MEMORANDUM TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND STAFF
SUBJECT: Escaping the Quagmire: The Challenges Facing Active Duty General and Flag Officers of the US Armed Forces
In early 2025, the Secretary of Defense fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Naval Operations, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Army and Air Force’s top uniformed lawyers. In doing so, he suggested that the four-star leaders were products of diversity policies rather than merit and that the lawyers would be “roadblocks” to the policy goals of the commander-in-chief. After more than a year and a half, it has become clear that forcing out senior officers with demonstrated professional skills and moral courage has contributed to widespread elimination of internal dissent.
In pursuit of a “warrior ethos” focused on a warped concept of lethality heavily imbued with caricatures of masculinity, anti-“wokeness,” and the tacit approval if not glorification of battlefield misconduct, this administration has undermined the principles of duty, honor, and country that for centuries have formed the core of our military’s strength. Combined with a clear preference for loyalty over competence, it is recasting America’s professional military into one that lacks coherent operational strategy, competent planning, and merit-based personnel policies. The result is a military beset with operational failure, declining morale, our allies’ mistrust, and our adversaries’ contempt.
The most significant and persistent casualty of this campaign has been the rule of law. As military officers, we swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, to obey the law, and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of our offices. We thus became part of a long line of practitioners and protectors of the principles of duty, honor, and country. We refuse to remain silent as those principles are cast aside.
We cannot ignore the extrajudicial killing boat strikes or civilian leaders who encourage war crimes in our war against Iran. These and other illegal uses of our military demand our vocal opposition. They clearly cross red lines we have identified; they also clearly cross the red lines today’s senior military leaders took an oath not to cross. Yet, we’ve neither seen nor heard a single protest.
Under normal circumstances, the public silence of active duty military officers in the face of orders issued by our political leaders would be expected. The military’s hierarchical structure; tradition of apolitical service based on an historical, deep-seated fear of a politicized, “praetorian” military; and military law’s strong (though rebuttable) presumption that orders are lawful have long combined to create both a powerful preference for airing dissent behind closed doors and a culture of silent obedience once decisions are made. But, these are not normal circumstances. This is about the duty of every servicemember to disobey patently unlawful orders at a time when civilian leaders have clearly expressed their intent to violate domestic and international law, including the law of armed conflict.
We suspect that many senior military leaders have serious misgivings about their civilian superiors’ rhetoric, policies, and actions. They may be waiting for this moment in history to pass so they can begin repairing the damage. They may be concerned that by speaking out they will inflict even greater harm on the military as an apolitical institution. If they believe they are protecting the men and women under their command, they should be mindful that those men and women place their trust in them to do the right thing.
Regardless of their reasons for remaining silent, it is clear that our nation is at an inflection point. Our military and our national security will be at grave risk unless our senior military leaders find a way to escape this quagmire. How do we restore the law, honor, ethics, and morality to our military and legitimacy to our national security?
Congress can help break this dangerous cycle by fulfilling its constitutional duty. Here are some ways it can help:
Require senior military leaders to publicly communicate their concerns to Congress.
An historical example is the 2005 congressional testimony of the Judge Advocates General of the Military Services opposing the Bush Administration policy permitting torture of prisoners in the guise of “enhanced interrogation.” Another example is the March 2026 testimony of General Gregory Guillot, the Commander of U.S. Northern Command. During a Senate Armed Services Committee posture hearing, he told Senators that he knew the law prohibits military troops from being deployed to polling places during elections and would disobey any order requiring such a deployment unless the facts and law allowed it.
Require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combatant Commanders to consider the law in determining whether they can execute a military operation.
The press has reported that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff views his job as limited to advising the President and Secretary of Defense whether the military can perform certain missions and not whether it should perform those missions. Into which category does compliance with the law fall? The principles of law, ethics, and morality must be considered when defining the legitimacy necessary for all military operations. The law must be part of every “can we do this” conversation.
To achieve this, Congress should amend 10 U.S.C § 153, which establishes the functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by adding at paragraph (a)(2) a new subparagraph (F) that reads: “provide, in consultation with the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an independent assessment of the impact of U.S. and international laws on advice the Chairman provides pursuant to this section.”
Provide a way for the Joint Chiefs and Combatant Commanders to challenge orders they believe are unlawful.
When considering whether a mission is lawful, our senior officers have apparently accepted legal opinions imposed on them from outside the Department of Defense even if they and their staff judge advocates believe those opinions are wrong. The boat strikes are a glaring example. Regardless of what senior administration lawyers might have said, the boat strikes are murder. Our senior military leaders must have a way to challenge orders they believe are unlawful.
Congress can legitimize such challenges by amending the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. ch. 33, to require in a new § 1543(a)(D) that within 48 hours of the employment of U.S. armed forces in any of the ways described the President shall submit “a report, in writing, setting forth ... the independent views of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on each of the matters described above in paragraphs (A), (B), and (C).”
There is no doubt that currently serving senior officers and their lawyers are dealing with unprecedented operational issues, morale challenges, ethical conflicts, and crises of conscience. We don’t know the conversations they’ve had behind closed doors or the extent to which they have privately voiced their concerns and opposition only to be overruled by their civilian superiors. However, we believe they will ultimately – perhaps soon – reach a point where they must begin refusing demands to cross their and this nation’s red lines.
Unless Congress acts to relieve this mounting pressure on our senior military leaders, we fear the resulting damage will be difficult to repair. Unless they are empowered to challenge this or any administration’s illegal actions, senior officers will continue to be torn between two distasteful alternatives: to resist unlawful orders and risk being fired or to say nothing and force the men and women under their command to decide for themselves whether the orders they are being given are unlawful. These are burdens neither senior leaders nor their subordinates should have to bear.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Edmund Burke
Comments