'Military lawyers question Hegseth's firings: Are they 'roadblocks' or supports?
The Pentagon chief expressed his desire for lawyers who support, rather than impede, decision-making processes for himself and military commanders, stating he doesn't want them to be “roadblocks.”
TroibNews 
The recent dismissal of top legal staff by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has raised concerns among military lawyers, who are skeptical of the intentions of someone who has publicly defended troops accused of war crimes and criticized established codes of conduct.
Hegseth intends to appoint a “broader set” of legal personnel for the Army, Navy, and Air Force at a time when active-duty troops are deploying to the border for a vaguely defined mission. This move coincides with the Trump administration's tendency to disregard norms and legal repercussions.
During his first term, the former Fox News host successfully persuaded President Donald Trump to pardon two soldiers charged with war crimes and advocated for the reinstatement of a Navy SEAL facing multiple charges, including the murder of a teenage Islamic State prisoner.
“We've heard from the president that he wants people who are loyal to him, and we've heard from [Hegseth] that he doesn't like lawyers who prosecute people he doesn't think should be accused of war crimes,” stated a former lawyer to a Joint Chiefs of Staff member. “So, the suggestion there is that they want somebody that's going to do their bidding.”
Central to Hegseth's agenda is the restoration of a "warrior ethos," which he claims has been undermined by diversity initiatives and restrictive combat rules. He expressed on Sunday that he wants to eliminate lawyers who act as “roadblocks” to the decisions made by military commanders.
The simultaneous firings of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. CQ Brown and Navy Adm. Lisa Franchetti had been anticipated for some time. However, the unexpected removal of the judge advocates general—with no explanation provided—came as a surprise even to those affected.
The Judge Advocates Association has voiced its “deep concern” over the dismissals of these nonpartisan legal professionals. Their exit “tends to subvert the independence and integrity of the military justice system, which is essential to combat readiness and critical to national security.”
The Pentagon did not respond to requests for commentary.
Judge advocates general, or JAGs, provide legal counsel to various military leadership, from the joint chiefs to field commanders. They are sourced from the officer ranks and are expected to remain nonpartisan. Appointments are made following a selection process by a board of officers, then approved by the Defense Secretary, with final nominations requiring Senate confirmation.
Hegseth has consistently expressed doubt regarding the role these lawyers play.
In his 2024 book, “The War on Warriors,” he referred to judge advocates general as “jagoffs,” and posed the question: “Should we follow the Geneva conventions ... Aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules?”
He previously advocated for pardons for Maj. Mathew Golsteyn and First Lt. Clint Lorance, both arrested for war crimes—Golsteyn for the alleged murder of an Afghan in custody and Lorance for ordering the killing of civilians.
Hegseth also publicly pushed for the reinstatement of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, charged in 2018 with killing civilians and making headlines for his photo with a deceased Islamic State prisoner. Gallagher was later acquitted.
All of these individuals had been reported by their own units.
“The lawyer firing seems like more of a Hegseth thing than a Trump thing,” remarked a former DOD official who worked closely with military lawyers and requested anonymity for sensitive commentary. “It seems distinct from the idea that the president needs fresh military leadership.”
While judge advocates provide essential legal counsel to military leadership, their independent legal interpretation is crucial for significant decisions made by service chiefs.
Some military lawyers are concerned that the new appointees will be viewed as compliant: “Anyone nominated to replace them will be viewed by many, both inside and outside the ranks, as simply a compliant PMG,” wrote Charlie Dunlap, a retired Air Force major general and former deputy JAG.
There are questions about the legality of the firings as well, given that Defense Department personnel should not interfere with a judge advocate general's ability to provide legal advice.
“The actions have been taken for no stated cause or performance issues, and that creates a chilling effect,” noted Scott Flesch, a former Army lawyer. “It threatens the independence and quality of advice upon which commanders rely and which the JAG corps is required to provide.”
He cautioned that removing lawyers from lower ranks could prevent them from participating in critical meetings.
“It will keep the lawyer out of the rooms where the decisions are made,” Flesch added. “And if they’re kept out of that room, they’re not hearing the information necessary to give neutral, non-partisan, independent feedback and advice.”
Jack Detsch contributed to this report.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
Hegseth intends to appoint a “broader set” of legal personnel for the Army, Navy, and Air Force at a time when active-duty troops are deploying to the border for a vaguely defined mission. This move coincides with the Trump administration's tendency to disregard norms and legal repercussions.
During his first term, the former Fox News host successfully persuaded President Donald Trump to pardon two soldiers charged with war crimes and advocated for the reinstatement of a Navy SEAL facing multiple charges, including the murder of a teenage Islamic State prisoner.
“We've heard from the president that he wants people who are loyal to him, and we've heard from [Hegseth] that he doesn't like lawyers who prosecute people he doesn't think should be accused of war crimes,” stated a former lawyer to a Joint Chiefs of Staff member. “So, the suggestion there is that they want somebody that's going to do their bidding.”
Central to Hegseth's agenda is the restoration of a "warrior ethos," which he claims has been undermined by diversity initiatives and restrictive combat rules. He expressed on Sunday that he wants to eliminate lawyers who act as “roadblocks” to the decisions made by military commanders.
The simultaneous firings of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. CQ Brown and Navy Adm. Lisa Franchetti had been anticipated for some time. However, the unexpected removal of the judge advocates general—with no explanation provided—came as a surprise even to those affected.
The Judge Advocates Association has voiced its “deep concern” over the dismissals of these nonpartisan legal professionals. Their exit “tends to subvert the independence and integrity of the military justice system, which is essential to combat readiness and critical to national security.”
The Pentagon did not respond to requests for commentary.
Judge advocates general, or JAGs, provide legal counsel to various military leadership, from the joint chiefs to field commanders. They are sourced from the officer ranks and are expected to remain nonpartisan. Appointments are made following a selection process by a board of officers, then approved by the Defense Secretary, with final nominations requiring Senate confirmation.
Hegseth has consistently expressed doubt regarding the role these lawyers play.
In his 2024 book, “The War on Warriors,” he referred to judge advocates general as “jagoffs,” and posed the question: “Should we follow the Geneva conventions ... Aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules?”
He previously advocated for pardons for Maj. Mathew Golsteyn and First Lt. Clint Lorance, both arrested for war crimes—Golsteyn for the alleged murder of an Afghan in custody and Lorance for ordering the killing of civilians.
Hegseth also publicly pushed for the reinstatement of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, charged in 2018 with killing civilians and making headlines for his photo with a deceased Islamic State prisoner. Gallagher was later acquitted.
All of these individuals had been reported by their own units.
“The lawyer firing seems like more of a Hegseth thing than a Trump thing,” remarked a former DOD official who worked closely with military lawyers and requested anonymity for sensitive commentary. “It seems distinct from the idea that the president needs fresh military leadership.”
While judge advocates provide essential legal counsel to military leadership, their independent legal interpretation is crucial for significant decisions made by service chiefs.
Some military lawyers are concerned that the new appointees will be viewed as compliant: “Anyone nominated to replace them will be viewed by many, both inside and outside the ranks, as simply a compliant PMG,” wrote Charlie Dunlap, a retired Air Force major general and former deputy JAG.
There are questions about the legality of the firings as well, given that Defense Department personnel should not interfere with a judge advocate general's ability to provide legal advice.
“The actions have been taken for no stated cause or performance issues, and that creates a chilling effect,” noted Scott Flesch, a former Army lawyer. “It threatens the independence and quality of advice upon which commanders rely and which the JAG corps is required to provide.”
He cautioned that removing lawyers from lower ranks could prevent them from participating in critical meetings.
“It will keep the lawyer out of the rooms where the decisions are made,” Flesch added. “And if they’re kept out of that room, they’re not hearing the information necessary to give neutral, non-partisan, independent feedback and advice.”
Jack Detsch contributed to this report.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
