[This piece was originally published by Marty France via Substack on Nov. 13. Reprinted here with permission.–ed]
The news coming from the Trump transition team yesterday was disheartening to say the least. First came the reported possibility of an executive order creating “Warrior Boards” of Trump-selected loyalist retired flag officers to review the records of sitting senior military officials for their “leadership” qualities. Then, we learned of the nomination of a part-time National Guard Major – who also happens to be a Fox News weekend host – as Secretary of Defense.
Let’s look at the first issue. I’m a retired one-star US Air Force General. I got to this point a round-about way that would take too long to explain here. However, the key part of any general officer promotion is that it must be approved (either individually or as part of a promotion list) by the service secretary who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense. Once approved, the nomination then goes to the Senate where it must be approved again – like they do for federal judges and other positions. My promotion jumped through these same hoops.
At no time during my 41 years in uniform did I hear of a general officer whose nomination for promotion was held up for an officer’s political leanings or stated positions until last year. I’ll get to that case in a moment. But first, let me say that my first sentence in this paragraph is based upon my perception during those 41 years that US military officers remained assiduously apolitical. We didn’t talk politics at work. We didn’t put campaign bumper stickers on our cars. In fact, I learned from my brother-in-law (a 37-year Navy vet) that the US Navy had an unspoken rule aboard ships (and extended to offices) that there were three topics never discussed in the “Wardroom”: sex, religion, and politics. During my career, I tried my best to extend that attitude to every office in which I worked.
I never really knew (or wanted to know) the political views of my superiors during my career and I can’t remember one who shared their views with me. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. I also didn’t see any discernible difference in the promotion processes or results of a promotion board across many presidential administrations and resulting service secretaries or service chiefs. However, I was aware of cases in which officers publicly (and inappropriately) expressed partisan political views and were summarily relieved of command or their career progression halted administratively.
After retiring, as most reading this missive know, I came out of the political closet—as is my right—and became more vocal about my views. I take it as a compliment that many were surprised by my views when I did this. The overwhelming majority of my subordinates, superiors and students did not know where I stood politically or religiously – which is as it should be. Some even claim that I didn’t “go liberal” until after I retired. Sorry, but that’s not accurate. You just didn’t know.
Yesterday’s announcement would blow away everything I describe above. The idea of a “Warrior Board” comprised of Trump loyalists to screen senior military promotions would poison our military and the public’s trust in the military for decades or generations to come.
We don’t know exactly how these Warrior Boards would operate, but let’s look at a real-life example of how it might.
I met Colonel Benjamin Jonsson in 2021 when he was the Vice Superintendent of the US Air Force Academy. We talked a few times face-to-face about Academy issues and I respected his professionalism and positions. He was a respected leader and pilot who had commanded at the Wing-level (i.e., a full air base operational unit). I was not at all surprised when, about a year later, he was listed among the newest crop of officers nominated to become brigadier generals in the Air Force.
His promotion, and that of many others, was initially held up by Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) in a post-Roe spat in which the Department of Defense pledged to allow military members to access reproductive care as part of their overall medical benefits even if they were stationed in states that now restricted or outlawed abortions and other reproductive care. Most of these blocks were lifted in December of 2023, with a few exceptions. Those remaining objections were lifted except for one – Ben Jonsson’s – this time held up by Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO). According to the Military Times article [“Just one promotion remains blocked due to officer’s views on diversity,” Dec. 21, 2023 – ed.]: “Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., is stonewalling the promotion because of his concerns about Jonsson’s stances on the military’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Schmitt’s office did not elaborate on his reason for the hold, other than to describe DEI programs as divisive and to note that Schmitt was a proponent of ending them.”
Brig Gen (S) Jonsson (I refer to him by the common military term of “Select” to acknowledge that he is already selected for, but pending official promotion to a new rank) was accused of publicly supporting Department of Defense policy of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion by speaking to and writing about these issues to subordinates in complete accordance with existing DoD policy AND his superior officer’s endorsement. For following legal orders and promulgating existing policy, his promotion has been blocked. When his “select” status expired a year after he was originally nominated, per law, the DoD took the unprecedented step of re-nominating him. As of today, his promotion remains blocked by Senator Schmitt, though, and Brig Gen (S) Jonsson is waiting in a colonel’s job as chief of staff from the headquarters of the USAF’s Air Mobility Command.
If Brig Gen (S) Jonsson can have his promotion blocked by a single senator for following the legal orders and policies of the Department of Defense, then what sort of damage could an extra-administrative, panel of meddling, Trump-supporting retired officers have on future promotions?
First, anyone seen as supporting the prior administration in ways that are counter to the future (or past) Trump administration’s policies could have their promotion—or even their current position and rank—withdrawn or revoked. In other words, they could be purged just by association. Any hint of these moves could have a chilling effect on current leadership and, potentially, lead to waves of retirement and separation among senior leaders that do not want to face the unwarranted, and unconstitutional scrutiny these boards would bring.
Senior officers who are potential promotees for flag rank (i.e., future generals and admirals) would have to think twice about their past adherence to guidance and orders. Would they now have to disavow past behavior to remain competitive? What of their private communications? It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see a McCarthy-style Warrior Board taking testimony from other officers or acquaintances or potential senior officers to make sure that they are purely loyal to Trump and the newly MAGA/Fox News host Pentagon leadership. Will jealous or rivalrous others condemn some officers? What about their families? Would they be held responsible for the political positions and statements made on social media by their spouses, children, friends, or relatives? Could a mere “like” be enough to torpedo a career? Who would willingly face this kind of scrutiny after decades of honorable service?
And now, what of the effect this sort of process might have on more junior members of the military? Instead of remaining neutral, might other members of the military find it necessary (however distasteful) to publicly declare allegiance to Trump and all things MAGA? Might they need to “play along” to stay on the path to promotion and career success? I’ve already had several junior USAF officers contact me and ask what they should do? Do they resign now and get on with their lives or do they battle this threat from within, facing all the negatives, pressure, and potential consequences of being on the wrong side of this autocratic tsunami?
And what happens to military recruitment? We know already that military recruiting is higher in red states than blue. The military has a reputation of being more conservative than the general population, but that’s not always the case. Most active-duty, regular military units are incredibly diverse – reflecting the nation as a whole. The fact that Biden won the active duty vote in 2020 (Harris lost it in 2024) tells me that there are far more centrist and left-leaning members of the military than many think. But, until now, we couldn’t be sure exactly because the military works very hard to stay apolitical.
Will this only accelerate the trend and make those that come from other-than-MAGA families eschew the military fearing that they would not fit in and have no viable path to success? Might this lead to a military that is more likely to obey illegal or unconstitutional orders issued by commanders vetted for their political loyalty versus their professionalism and commitment to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?” Only time will tell.
However, the American public needs to realize that it takes 25 years or more to “raise” a general officer. Damage done today to the pool of potential generals that are now captains, lieutenants, sergeants, cadets, and high school students won’t be undone with a new administration in a few years. It will ripple through the force for decades, degrading the pool of potential military leaders and, tragically, diminishing the trust the American public has long had in our military virtually since the establishment of the republic.
Republicans also need to ask themselves, “What if the same policies were applied to our people or people that lean in our direction politically, at some point in the future?” Our military could then be whipsawed every four or eight years from one political extreme to another. There would be no loyalty to the Constitution or adherence to our oath, but instead, only transient promises of fealty to the current leader – a perfect recipe for escalating instability, factionalism and violence.
Finally, the most dangerous issue for the general public of making the military overtly political is that this could pave the way for posse comitatus use of the military for things like mass deportations, suppression of protests, and much, much worse.
More than 1,000 former senior national security leaders (the majority being retired flag officers) signed a letter endorsing Vice President Harris for President – including me. This included many four-star generals and admirals. We warned of exactly this danger in doing so, having read the pertinent sections of Project 2025. That this now may come to pass should surprise none of us, but it should further alert the rest of the nation to the danger they willingly elected.
Do you have an opinion you want to express in a guest column? Get in touch with the editor at heila@pikespeakbulletin.org.
