A Deeper Look at Trump's Friday Night Pentagon Massacre
Firing the JAGs may be the most significant part of the purge.
Donald Trump’s decision to fire General Charles Q. Brown, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with other top military leaders, marks a dramatic shift in the relationship between the presidency and the military. While Trump has the authority to replace the Chairman, history shows that such an abrupt move is extremely rare. The last four presidents—Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—all allowed their predecessor’s appointee to serve their full term.
1. Firing the Chairman: A Break from Precedent
While the President has the authority to appoint and replace the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, recent tradition has favored continuity.
George W. Bush inherited General Hugh Shelton (appointed by Clinton) and allowed him to serve until his scheduled retirement in 2001.
Barack Obama retained Admiral Mike Mullen, Bush’s appointee, for two years.
Donald Trump kept General Joseph Dunford, Obama’s appointee, in place for two years.
Joe Biden did the same with General Mark Milley, whom Trump appointed.
By contrast, Trump is not waiting—he is removing General Charles Q. Brown immediately. This is not about policy or performance; it is about loyalty—something Trump has repeatedly demanded from military leaders.
2. Who Is Lt. Gen (Ret) John Dan "Razin" Cain?
Trump on Friday said he plans to appoint retired Air Force Lt. Gen. John Dan “Razin” Caine as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Caine is a three-star general whom Trump has praised since at least 2019. He would be the first three star general elevated to the chief status since 1949 — a break from tradition whereby it as always been either a four-star general or an admiral. As the Washington Post explains:
By law, an officer appointed as chairman of the Joint Chiefs must have served as a vice chairman or must have previously overseen a military service or a combatant command. Caine did not serve in any of those positions. This requirement can be waived, however, if the president “determines such action is necessary in the national interest,” according to the law.
Why would Trump bypass so many more senior officers?
Well, there’s this. Trump, recounting an encounter with Cain, said:
He [Cain] said, ‘I love you sir. I’ll kill for you sir, Then he puts on a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat.
Think about that for a moment: a military officer pledging personal loyalty to a political leader with an offer to kill for him. That is not the language of a professional, constitutionally bound military—it is the language of a cult of personality.
3. The Other Heads That Rolled – And the Targeting of the JAG Corps
Alongside General Brown, Trump also removed Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the Navy. But perhaps even more significant is the systematic targeting of the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps, the military's legal arm. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote:
We are also requesting nominations for the Judge Advocates General for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
This should set off alarm bells. Here’s why:
4. Why the JAGs Matter: Legal Orders vs. Illegal Orders
In the military, officers are obligated to follow legal orders—but they must refuse illegal ones.
But what is legal and what is illegal is not always clearcut. That is where the JAG Corps comes in. These military lawyers determine the legality of orders given by commanders, including the President.
By replacing the JAGs with Trump loyalists, Trump is removing a key safeguard against illegal military actions. If Trump orders something legally questionable—whether it involves deploying troops domestically, detaining political opponents, or taking military action abroad—his hand-picked JAGs can simply declare, “Yes, Mr. President, that’s legal.”
This is not just about control—it is about creating a military that will follow orders without question, no matter what those orders are, from a commander in chief who has no concept or acceptance of legal constraints.
5. What It All Means
One of the greatest strengths of the U.S. military has always been its professional officer corps—a group of leaders trained to defend the Constitution, not a person. American generals and admirals have historically put country before party, law before loyalty.
Trump is trying to change that.
By removing independent-minded leaders and replacing them with people personally loyal to him, Trump is laying the groundwork for a military that follows him, not the Constitution. This is how democracies erode—when the armed forces become a tool of one man rather than a neutral institution protecting the nation as a whole.
6. The Bottom Line: Stay Vigilant
This is not normal. A professional, nonpartisan military is one of the strongest safeguards against authoritarianism. Trump is dismantling that safeguard piece by piece. If you believe in democracy, in the rule of law, and in a military that serves the Constitution rather than a man, now is the time to pay attention. Stay vigilant.
I suppose one would need another election to test in how far the new government is eschewed by those who voted for it. There are those in the civil service whose positions have been terminated, who are speaking out; there may be others still employed who are afeared to speak out because they don't want to lose their positions. The vociferous are that because, in some measure, they have nothing more to lose by being that.
The distinction between a lawful and an unlawful command is correct, except, even you introduce the concept of the unlawful command with the word "but". Can I suggest a rewrite: "officers are obligated to follow legal orders—AND they ARE OBLIGATED TO refuse illegal ones"? And what of those who are not of officer rank?
We are harking back to a principle that was established at Nuremberg: it is not conscionable to simply follow orders if the orders one follows are unconscionable.
I am not entirely sure why Aaron Bushnell did what he did. It was probably not to have a street in Hebron named after him. I wrote at the time that he did it not because of what would happen to him by his doing it, but because of what would happen to us. Since then, there has been a ripple of resignations, Harrison Mann being the one that stands out most for me. That's the backstop, not the JAG, which is nice to have. It must be impressed upon soldiers, sailors and airmen what "conscionable" means and what "unconscionable" is. In the US if not in certain other ally countries. Who knows, perhaps then even the US can boast that it has "the most moral army in the world", but there are a litany of military operations, special or otherwise, littering US history that obviously failed to properly grab the attention of the morally minded in times past.