According to insider sources, President-elect Donald Trump’s team is reportedly preparing a list of high-ranking military officers for dismissal, potentially targeting top Pentagon officials, including Joint Chiefs of Staff appointees under Trump’s previous chairman, General Mark Milley. The proposal, though still in preliminary stages, signals a sweeping overhaul of Pentagon leadership as Trump’s incoming administration aims to reshape military direction and reduce what it perceives as a bureaucratic overreach within the Department of Defense.
In an unprecedented move, members of President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team are drafting a list of senior military officers for dismissal, including the possibility of replacing key figures in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to two sources familiar with the transition planning, this effort seeks to purge military officers viewed as aligned with former Joint Chiefs chairman General Mark Milley, who openly criticized Trump, once referring to him as “fascist to the core” in Bob Woodward’s recent book War. These sources, who spoke under anonymity to discuss the sensitive plans, indicate that the leadership overhaul may be partly fueled by a desire to correct perceived "woke" influences and lingering criticisms from military leaders.
At the center of the potential shakeup is Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, a Fox News commentator and military veteran. Known for his hardline views on Pentagon leadership, Hegseth has long argued for a radical reformation within the Department of Defense, asserting in his book The War on Warriors that significant leadership changes are essential to strengthen U.S. defense readiness. “Lots of people need to be fired,” Hegseth wrote, criticizing current Pentagon officials as obstructive and unnecessary at a time of heightened global conflicts, such as those in Ukraine and the Middle East.
A notable target for early removal is Air Force General C.Q. Brown, Milley’s successor and a high-ranking officer with an extensive military record. Hegseth’s public commentary about Brown has raised controversy, particularly his questioning whether Brown’s appointment was based on merit or his race, a statement widely criticized as racially charged and unnecessary. For Trump’s incoming team, Brown’s removal could symbolize a rejection of Pentagon figures perceived as divisive or overly focused on social issues.
While the firings remain speculative, several officials have raised doubts about the feasibility and strategic wisdom of dismissing so many high-ranking military figures at once, especially in the current era of global unrest. “Replacing Joint Chiefs members would be complicated,” noted one insider, who suggested that the logistical challenges of firing and replacing senior military officials could make the idea more of a political statement than a viable plan. The same source highlighted that Trump’s allies may be signaling their intentions to reduce what they see as bureaucratic inefficiencies within the Pentagon rather than seriously intending to remove key personnel on a mass scale.
However, a second source emphasized that Trump’s team sees no shortage of qualified replacements, pointing to World War II-era practices where officers in their 30s quickly rose to general ranks during wartime. They noted that “no one is irreplaceable” and argued that streamlining Pentagon leadership would promote greater accountability and responsiveness within the military. The focus, they said, was on reducing excessive hierarchy and avoiding what they view as the overreach of bureaucratic influence within national defense.
If these plans come to fruition, this restructuring would represent one of the most significant leadership shifts at the Pentagon in recent history, marking a profound departure from the typical continuity seen in military leadership. As Trump’s team continues to shape its defense strategy, the potential impact of these changes remains uncertain, with national security experts divided over whether such an overhaul would enhance or hinder the effectiveness of U.S. military operations in a complex global environment.
