Why is Hegseth eliminating 20 percent of general and admiral positions in the United States? | Military news

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced plans to cut the number of Army positions reserved for generals and admirals by 20 percent, sparking concerns about political interference in the military’s leadership amid strained relations with senior Pentagon officials.

Speaking Wednesday at the U.S. Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, Hegseth said the reduction was “long overdue” and necessary to purge “woke” elements of the U.S. armed forces.

“You can’t change a culture with the same people who enabled it,” he said. “Personnel is policy at every level. »

He added that “no fats, no trans, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals, just warriors” would be allowed in the U.S. armed forces.

“We have ended the poisonous culture of risk aversion and empowered leaders at all levels to simply enforce standards,” Hegseth said. “As you know, the sole focus of your training should be training, preparation, responsibility, discipline, and lethality. When pursuing these goals, you don’t have to walk on eggshells.”

The Pentagon has touted previous budget cuts as a way to reduce bureaucracy. But analysts say Hegseth’s latest changes could be aimed at sidelining experienced commanders, discouraging dissent and putting more officers loyal to President Donald Trump into the ranks.

Is the American army too heavy, and what could be the consequences of these reductions? Here’s what we know.

What does Hegseth do?

Citing Pentagon officials, the Associated Press news agency reported that Hegseth would double the 10 percent reduction in senior personnel ordered last year, bringing the total reduction to 20 percent by Jan. 1, 2027. The plan affects about 800 general and admiral positions in the one- to four-star ranks.

Congress sets statutory limits on the number of generals and admirals. A Congressional Research Service report recorded 848 generals and admirals on active duty as of September 2025, below the authorized maximum of 857.

Eliminating positions does not necessarily mean immediately firing everyone who fills them. An official told the Reuters news agency that some positions would be eliminated, while others would be given to lower-ranking positions.

Why are high-ranking military positions being abolished?

The argument for reducing senior ranks predates Hegseth’s tenure, with supporters arguing that fewer levels of command would reduce administrative work and give officers closer to operations greater authority.

Walter Ladwig, a political scientist specializing in American foreign policy at King’s College London, believes there is a credible case for reform. “Since the end of the Cold War, the overall size of the force has declined significantly, but we have not seen a corresponding reduction in the number of general officers,” he told Al Jazeera.

“At the same time, we have seen the proliferation of headquarters and staffs.”

Trump and Hegseth have already fired or retired more than two dozen military leaders since Trump took office in January 2025.

Among those fired were Gen. Randy George, the U.S. military’s highest-ranking uniformed officer, in April, and Adm. Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations, in February 2025. The administration also fired the only two women serving as four-star officers, alongside other senior female officers.

In February 2025, Trump also fired Air Force General CQ Brown from his position as chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, as part of a broader shake-up of senior military leadership.

Other departures concern civilian leaders. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned in late August after reporting disagreements over how Hegseth treated top military officials.

The layoffs, along with blocked promotions, have raised questions about how the administration selects commanders and whether professional disagreements could jeopardize careers. Robert Ralston, professor of political science and international studies at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, said the proposed cuts should be weighed against those previous decisions.

“These cuts appear to be part of a broader and sustained effort by Hegseth to fill ranks based on political rather than meritocratic considerations,” he told Al Jazeera.

“In my opinion, it is politics that determines these decisions. »

What political consequences could this generate?

The move comes at a deeply precarious time for the U.S. military, embroiled in an unpopular war in Iran with no end in sight. Hegseth’s leadership in the conflict – and that of the United States Department of Defense as a whole – has come under increasing scrutiny.

Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona criticized Hegseth’s changes at the Pentagon. “The U.S. military doesn’t need more testosterone; it needs better leadership at this point,” Kelly said last week on MS NOW’s Morning Joe.

“The consequences of firing all these admirals and generals is that we lose part, a good part, of a generation of great leaders.”

David Galbreath, professor of warfare and technology at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom, told Al Jazeera that resistance from Congress and military leaders could complicate changes.

He cited opposition to President Jimmy Carter’s plan to withdraw U.S. ground troops from South Korea as an example of how military and congressional pressure can constrain a president.

“I suspect that after the election we will probably see a much more confrontational Congress with investigations and indictments against Hegseth,” he said.

Whether this prediction comes true will likely depend on the November congressional elections and whether the Republican Party retains control of both houses of Congress.

What criticisms have been leveled at Hegseth?

Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon was marked by controversy and tension with senior officials. In March 2025, he shared details of upcoming strikes against Yemen in a Signal chat group that inadvertently included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine.

Several US media reports on dwindling arms stockpiles in the Middle East prompted his department to investigate leaks and restrict journalists’ access earlier this year. The New York Times reported in August that about 50 military and civilian officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff had undergone polygraph tests amid growing distrust within the Pentagon.

Hegseth has meanwhile made ending what he calls “woke” culture a central priority, introducing new fitness requirements and abolishing diversity policies.

Ralston said the combination of layoffs and blocked promotions could harm the Army’s morale and future leadership. “His relationships with senior military officials have been contentious. His denial of promotions has undoubtedly damaged morale and will have long-term consequences for leadership pipelines within the Department of Defense,” he said.

King’s College’s Ladwig also described Hegseth’s relationship with senior Pentagon leaders as unusually adversarial, but cautioned against interpreting each reduction proposal as a power struggle.

“When a military is under civilian control, it means the elected government has the right to determine defense priorities and reorganize the armed forces accordingly,” he said.

But Ladwig warned the changes could encourage officers to withhold their professional recommendations when advising high-ranking politicians. “This could incentivize military officers to self-censor rather than provide candid professional military advice, particularly if political alignment with the administration is seen as a path to success,” he said.

“This is a very worrying pathology, and it’s the kind of thing that produces ineffective armies in dictatorships. »