Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has announced plans to cut the number of military positions held by generals and admirals by 20 percent, raising concerns about political interference in military leadership as relations with senior Pentagon officials become strained.
Hegseth, speaking Wednesday at the U.S. Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia, argued that the cuts are “long overdue” and needed to purge the U.S. military of “woke” elements.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“You can’t change a culture with the same people who made it possible,” he says. “HR is policy at every level.”
He added that “fat people, transsexuals, weirdos, weaklings, extremists, just warriors” are accepted by the U.S. military.
“We ended a toxic culture of risk aversion and empowered leaders at all levels to enforce standards,” Hegseth said. “You know, the only focus in an organization is training, readiness, responsibility, discipline, lethality. You don’t have to walk on eggshells when pursuing these things.”
The Pentagon has previously proposed layoffs as a way to reduce bureaucracy. But analysts say Mr. Hegseth’s changes may be aimed at sidelining experienced commanders, discouraging dissent and appointing more officers loyal to President Donald Trump.
So is the US military too top-heavy, and what do the cuts mean? Here’s what we know:
What does Hegseth do?
The Associated Press, citing Pentagon officials, reported that Hegseth plans to double the 10% reduction in senior personnel he ordered last year, bringing the total reduction to 20% by January 1, 2027. The plan affects approximately 800 general and admiral positions ranging from one to four stars.
Congress sets legal limits on the number of generals and admirals. A Congressional Research Service report records the number of active duty generals and admirals as of September 2025 at 848, below the authorized maximum of 857.
Cutting a position does not necessarily mean immediately firing everyone in that position. Officials told Reuters that some positions will be abolished and others will be assigned to lower-level government positions.
Why are top positions in the military being eliminated?
Arguments for reducing senior ranks predate Hegseth’s tenure, with proponents arguing that reducing the command hierarchy would reduce administrative tasks and give more power to officers closer to operations.
Walter Ludwig, a political scientist at King’s College London who specializes in U.S. foreign policy, said he was confident there was room for reform. “While the overall size of the force has decreased significantly since the end of the Cold War, there has been no corresponding decrease in the number of flag officers,” he told Al Jazeera.
“At the same time, we’ve seen our headquarters and staff grow rapidly.”
Since Trump took office in January 2025, he and Hegseth have already fired or forced more than 20 military leaders to retire.
Those fired include Adm. Randy George, the Army’s top uniformed officer, in April, and Admiral Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations, in February 2025. The government also removed the only two women who had served as four-star officers, along with other senior female officers.
In February 2025, President Trump also removed Air Force Gen. CQ Brown as Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff as part of a broader overhaul of the military’s top leadership.
There were also departures of civilian leaders. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned in late August after reports of disagreements over Mr. Hegseth’s treatment of senior military personnel.
The firings, along with blocking promotions, raised questions about how the administration selects commanders and whether professional disagreements could jeopardize careers. Robert Ralston, lecturer in political science and international studies at the University of Birmingham in the UK, said the proposed cuts should be considered alongside these previous decisions.
“These cuts appear to be part of a broader and ongoing effort by Mr. Hegseth to replenish his workforce, based on political considerations rather than meritocracy,” he told Al Jazeera.
“In my view, politics is driving these decisions.”
What political implications might arise from this?
The move comes at a very dangerous time for the US military, which is embroiled in an unpopular war in Iran with no end in sight. Hegseth’s leadership of the conflict, and the Pentagon, has come under increasing scrutiny.
Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona criticized Mr. Hegseth’s changes at the Pentagon. “We don’t need more testosterone in the U.S. military. We need better leadership at this time,” Kelly said on MS NOW’s Morning Joe show last week.
“As a result of removing all these admirals and generals, we are losing part, a significant portion, of a great generation of leadership.”
David Galbreath, a professor of war and technology at Britain’s University of Bath, told Al Jazeera that resistance from parliament and military leaders could complicate change.
He pointed to the opposition that arose to President Jimmy Carter’s plan to withdraw U.S. ground forces from South Korea as an example of how military and Congressional pressure constrains presidents.
He said, “After the election, there is a high possibility that we will see a more confrontational Congress, including an investigation and impeachment of Mr. Hegseth.”
Whether this prediction comes true will likely depend on November’s congressional elections and whether Republicans maintain control of both chambers of Congress.
What criticisms have been made of Hegseth?
Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon was marked by controversy and tension with senior officials. In March 2025, he shared details of an upcoming attack on Yemen in the Signal chat group, which coincidentally included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine.
Numerous US media reports about declining arms supplies in the Middle East prompted the department to investigate the leak earlier this year and restrict access to journalists. In August, the New York Times reported that about 50 military and civilian employees of the Joint Chiefs of Staff underwent polygraph tests amid growing distrust within the Pentagon.
Mr Hegseth, meanwhile, has made ending what he calls a “woke” culture a top priority, introducing new fitness requirements and scrapping diversity policies.
Ralston said the combination of firings and blocking promotions can damage morale and future military leadership. “His relationship with senior military leaders was adversarial, and the breakdown in his promotion is undoubtedly damaging to morale and will have a long-term impact on the leadership pipeline within the Department of Defense,” he said.
King’s College’s Ludwig also said Hegseth’s relationship with Pentagon leaders was unusually adversarial, but cautioned against interpreting any proposed cuts as a power play.
“Civilian control of the military means that the elected government has the right to determine defense priorities and reorganize the military accordingly,” he said.
But Mr Ludwig warned that the changes could lead to officials refraining from making professional recommendations when advising senior politicians. “There may be an incentive for military officers to censor themselves rather than provide candid, professional military advice, especially if politically aligned with the regime is seen as a path to success,” he said.
“This is a very worrying pathology, the same kind that creates incompetent militaries in dictatorships.”
