In the midst of the war in Iran, the Trump administration continues its purge within the United States military. Three officers removed, including the chief of staff of the army. The decision by the Secretary of Defense, who has already removed several high-ranking officials, often African Americans or women, is shaping his ideal white, Christian, and masculine army. Pete Hegseth, heading a ministry he renamed as the “War Ministry,” assured that he simply chooses the leaders he wants to lead the world’s largest military budget. Analysis from Tara Varma, director of the strategic foresight program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
RFI: The purge within the US military continues. Three officers replaced, including the chief of staff of the army, sacked by the Pentagon without any official reasons communicated. How do you explain this? Tama Varma: It’s difficult to explain. Beyond the clearest explanation, which is the rapid purge that began with the Republican administration taking office in January 2025. Surprisingly, there is no official justification provided for these dismissals. This latest dismissal is part of a series of over a dozen dismissals of high-ranking generals and admirals by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth since taking office last year. Randy George, who was the chief of staff of the army until yesterday, survived the first wave of dismissals in February, where the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had already removed top military officials such as Admiral Lisa Franchetti and General CQ Brown, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and African American.
This situation highlights that most dismissals of high-ranking officials or refusals of promotions affect women or African Americans. There is a clear distinction in this purge conducted by the American administration. Randy George is somewhat of an exception. I suspect his dismissal is related to military developments in the current war in Iran, which might not be as favorable to the United States as expected.
This purge began as soon as Donald Trump returned to power. High-ranking officers were dismissed because they were considered disloyal. It was mainly women or African Americans. The removal of military personnel who did not conform to the masculine mold was promoted by the U.S. president and his team. Has this continued? Yes, it can be observed in the various speeches Pete Hegseth has given since taking office last year. He talks about ethics of lethality, masculinism. He states that under his leadership, the Pentagon will no longer allow men to dress as women or wear dresses. He has strict requirements on how military personnel should be groomed and dressed. He emphasizes this ethics of masculinity and lethality a lot, but these are rather superficial considerations.
He wants to get rid of people who, in his view, do not fit into the narrow mold he has defined, people who would make him uncomfortable and challenge his leadership and decision-making capability that promote U.S. strategic interests. He has regularly questioned the idea that women can be competent to hold positions of responsibility. He has also questioned whether African Americans are capable of making decisions that involve U.S. strategic interests and the conduct of war.
This is an affirmation of a nativist and racist policy, to the detriment of Pentagon high-ranking officials. There is both a willingness to eliminate any form of disagreement and a clear form of revisionism. In Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon, one must be a white, Christian man.
To delve deeper, among the people who have just been removed, there is also the chief chaplain of the army. There have been recent tensions because the Defense Secretary now requires chaplains to display their religion on their uniform instead of their rank. Could there be a connection? Yes, I think the role of religion is in defense of a white and Christian America. Even though the role of religion is obviously more present in the public debate in the U.S. than in France, as well as in several European countries, the idea of displaying religion contributes to accentuating this very narrow definition of what it means to be American.
Knowing that this puts all high-ranking and lower-ranking officials in an embarrassing situation, since the U.S. military, in theory, responds to the Constitution. It does not respond to the Secretary of Defense, the president, or the demands and whims of these two individuals. We see a redefinition effort by the Trump administration of the U.S. military’s hierarchical relationship. Trump does not want it to be governed by the Constitution, he wants it to be under the authority of the Secretary of Defense and President Donald Trump.
This is causing tensions… It’s hard to say. In France, the military is known as the “great silent.” It’s somewhat similar in the U.S., where high-ranking officials must speak anonymously.
At the end of 2025, the Secretary of Defense had summoned all high-ranking officials for a speech. He was not applauded during this live broadcast, and he complained to the audience, mainly consisting of top U.S. officials, that he was not applauded and they should applaud him. There were some applause later, but still weak. We could see a form of unspoken resistance emerging among certain high-ranking officials.
I believe there is a desire for dissent to come to the surface. He would like generals and admirals who disagree with him to come forward so that he can then dismiss them to build a base within the U.S. military of loyalists to President Trump and his policies.
A French journalist has just published a book about the U.S. military in which he describes changes in recruitment rules, especially regarding enrollment rules. According to him, these rules have allowed the enrollment of white supremacist and neo-Nazi militants. What are the daily consequences of this in light of Donald Trump’s return to power and figures like Pete Hegseth? There is recruitment based on ideology. This is completely contrary to the practices since the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. military Constitution, for over 250 years. Several practices introduced by Pete Hegseth, including hazing and physical harassment, have had rapid effects on behavior and functioning of this army, which could be deployed abroad again. We, Europeans, will directly see the effects of these behavioral changes and ideologies in our interactions with the U.S. military.
Read also: U.S.: Trump asks Congress for a massive defense budget of $1,500 billion for 2027.
