In a significant shake-up at the Pentagon last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force.
This decision comes amid a broader series of dismissals across the Department of Defense (DOD), including that of Charles “CQ” Brown, Jr., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — the highest ranking military officer in the US armed forces. The country’s Chief of Naval Operations and Air Force Vice Chief of Staff were also ousted. But despite the high profile natures of these firings, some analysts have argued that the firings of the military’s top lawyers — its Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) — poses an even greater threat to the rule of law in the US.
“Trump…firing the Army, Navy, and Air Force JAGs [is in some ways] even more chilling than firing the four star [generals]. It’s what you do when you’re planning to break the law: you get rid of any lawyers who might try to slow you down,” wrote Georgetown Law Professor Rosa Brooks on X.
“When you start firing the military’s top lawyers, that means you are getting ready to order the military to do unlawful things. Trump replaces those JAGs with men who will justify any future unlawful and unethical actions that he wants the military to do,” wrote Democratic political candidate and former US fighter pilot Amy McGrath, also via X.
Presented with concerns about the implications of these firings, Hegseth said in a Fox News interview, “We want lawyers who give sound constitutional advice and don’t exist to attempt to be roadblocks.”
In this explainer, we will consider the roles that JAGs play in safeguarding the rule of law and explore the potential consequences of these firings.
What do I need to know about the JAG firings?
On Friday, Feb. 21, 2025, Hegseth announced the reshuffling of several key DOD leadership positions. In the announcement, he named Brown and two other outgoing officers: Admiral Lisa Franchetti — the first woman to have served as chief of naval operations, and General James Slife, the US Air Force Vice Chief of Staff. Hegseth praised all three of these officers for their distinguished careers and service records.
Without names or praise, he also noted the DOD was looking for new JAGs for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. On the matter, he said only: “Under President [Donald] Trump, we are putting in place new leadership that will focus our military on its core mission of deterring, fighting and winning wars.”
The dismissals come amid a broader shakeup of the US federal government, which Trump has prioritized since reentering the Oval Office last month.
What do JAGs do?
JAG officers are lawyers who serve across all branches of the US armed forces. They provide legal advice to military commanders on operational law while prosecuting and defending service members in courts-martial. JAGs represent military personnel in administrative proceedings, advise on international law and rules of engagement during operations, and handle military justice cases to maintain good order and discipline.
JAGs play a significant role in accountability, investigating potential violations of military law and the laws of armed conflict. They participate in after-action reviews, help determine if misconduct occurred, and may be involved in court-martial proceedings when service members face charges for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or laws of war.
What do we know about Hegseth’s views on legal compliance and accountability?
Hegseth has been openly critical of military lawyers throughout his career. In his 2024 book The War on Warriors, he derisively referred to JAGs as “jagoffs” and blamed them for imposing what he considers overly restrictive rules of engagement that hampered combat effectiveness in Iraq and Afghanistan. This terminology became contentious during his confirmation hearings, with Senator Jack Reed questioning whether someone who disparaged military personnel could effectively lead the DOD.
Hegseth has also spoken disparagingly of international legal accountability. During his confirmation hearing, US Senator Angus King of Maine asked whether under his leadership, the DOD would abide by the Geneva Conventions. Hegseth responded:
What an America first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield.
During Trump’s first term, Hegseth used his platform as a Fox News host to advocate for pardoning US service members accused or convicted of war crimes.
Why are these firings significant from a domestic perspective?
The dismissal of the military’s top lawyers comes amid growing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary. These firings could escalate efforts to reduce legal oversight of executive actions, particularly in the military domain.
By removing senior JAGs trained to provide independent legal advice, the administration may be positioning itself to implement policies that could test legal boundaries with reduced internal resistance. This raises concerns about adherence to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and constitutional limitations on military power.
Why are these firings significant from an international perspective?
The dismissal of top military lawyers raises concerns about US commitment to international laws of armed conflict.
Hegseth has expressed frustration with international legal frameworks, questioning their value when enemies don’t follow them. In his book, he writes: “What do you do if your enemy does not honor the Geneva Conventions? We never got an answer. Only more war. More casualties. And no victory.”
This stance, combined with removing legal advisors tasked with ensuring compliance with international law, may signal a potential shift in how the US approaches legal obligations in conflicts. Such a shift could have diplomatic repercussions and affect relationships with allies who emphasize adherence to international humanitarian law.
The United States has maintained a complex relationship with international accountability mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC). While advocating for international justice in principle, the US has refused ICC jurisdiction over American personnel in the past, and has imposed sanctions against ICC officials under Trump.
The firing of JAGs could further distance the US from international legal accountability structures.
