During an unprecedented evening, the President Donald Trump carried out a radical restructuring of the US military leadership, removing the top leadership of the Pentagon. According to sources consulted, Friday night saw the dismissal of the Chief of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown, moments before the Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegsethremoved two other key figures: theFlagship Lisa FranchettiChief of the Navy, and the General James SlifeDeputy Chief of the Air Force.
A Controversial Choice
The decision to replace Brown marked an exceptional event, not only for the speed of the action but also for the nature of the replacement. Trump appointed retired Air Force Lt. Gen, John Dan 'Razin' Caine, at the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee. This choice caused a stir, since Caine, despite having been an elite pilot and a protagonist in military operations, does not possess the four-star rank required by military regulations, a constraint that can nevertheless be overcome if deemed 'necessary in the national interest'.
Ideological Motives and Controversies
Behind this move are also ideological and political issues. Criticism of General Brown was not limited to operational management, but also involved issues of 'wokeism' and efforts at inclusion and diversity within the armed forces. Trump, a long-time critic of diversity policies, had repeatedly publicly attacked the military for standing up for these values. Over the past few months, Hegseth's controversial comments - he even insinuated in some statements that Brown had obtained his position because of the colour of his skin - have further fuelled the climate of tension and division.
In parallel, the Secretary of Defence's intervention also concerned the figure of military legal officers, the so-called Judge Advocates General (JAG), openly criticised as 'jagoffs' and considered by some as an obstacle to the 'full effectiveness' of war operations. The desire to replace even these strategic roles has raised concerns among experts and veterans, who see such changes as an attempt to introduce more political conformity within military justice.
Implications and Reactions of the Change of Chief of Staff
The dismissal of Brown, the only one of the few African-Americans to have reached the top of the military, represents a severe blow to a leadership that, until recently, was seen as a symbol of progress and inclusiveness in the armed forces. His removal, which took place against a background of intense internal debate and political pressure, triggered chain reactions both within the Pentagon and in Congress. Critics and supporters alike have expressed fears about the long-term impact of such a reshuffling of leadership, which could affect the armed forces' ability to operate with the usual professionalism and political independence.
While some members of Congress, including Senator Roger Wicker, expressed confidence in the choice of the new executive, others, such as Democratic leaders, denounced a blatant attempt to politicise the military institutions, jeopardising the balance between civilian control and operational autonomy. General Brown, in fact, had spent 16 months at the helm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a period marked by global conflicts, from the war in Ukraine to the growing tensions in the Middle East, and his work had been regarded by many as a bastion of professionalism.
Conclusions
President Trump's action marks a decisive shift in the US military leadership structure, with repercussions that go far beyond the Pentagon. The reorganisation of the top leadership and the replacement of historical figures such as General Brown underline a profoundly different view of the management of national defence, in which politics and ideology seem to play a central role in determining strategic choices. It remains to be seen how these changes will affect the armed forces' ability to respond effectively to future challenges and whether the balance between merit and politics can be maintained in such a highly polarised context.
