U.S. civil-military relations rest on a fundamental contradiction. The United States operates as a liberal society — one designed to protect individual rights and liberty. Yet the military, which defends that society, cannot function under the same liberal principles.
To succeed, the military must maintain effectiveness, which demands a distinct and separate ethos. Liberal norms do not translate to battlefield realities.
Trust and cohesion — core elements of military success — cannot survive a system that prioritizes categories over character.
Civil society may tolerate — or even celebrate — behaviors the military must prohibit. The armed forces uphold virtues many civilians regard as harsh or barbaric, but those values serve a purpose. The military remains one of the few professions where issuing a direct order to “go die” is not only possible but sometimes necessary.
In his classic 1957 study, “The Soldier and the State,” Samuel Huntington defined a central tension in American civil-military relations: the clash between the military’s functional imperative — to fight and win wars — and the social imperative, the prevailing ideologies and institutions of civilian society.
Huntington broke down the societal imperative into two main components. First, the U.S. constitutional framework that governs politics and military oversight. Second, the dominant political ideology, which he called liberalism — “the gravest domestic threat to American military security” because of its deep anti-military bias.
Huntington warned that over time, the societal imperative would eclipse the functional one. Civilian ideology, not military necessity, would shape the armed forces, weakening the virtues essential for combat effectiveness.
He also identified two outcomes of this liberal pressure. In peacetime, liberalism pushed for “extirpation” — shrinking or abolishing military power altogether. In times of danger, it favored “transmutation” — reshaping the military in its own image by erasing the traits that make it distinctly martial.
Today, the ideology of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has taken that process to an extreme. This isn’t just transmutation. It’s transmutation on steroids.
The military began its embrace of DEI during Barack Obama’s administration, following the 2011 report “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century” by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. That report shifted military priorities away from the functional imperative — effectiveness rooted in merit, performance, and mission — toward the societal imperative, with “diversity, equity, and inclusion” elevated as the new ideal.
In practice, the Department of Defense replaced equal opportunity with “equity,” enforcing outcome-based preferences that favor certain demographic groups over others. Military leaders declared “diversity a strategic goal,” sidelining effectiveness as the primary objective.
This shift has fractured the ranks. By treating race and sex as markers of justice instead of emphasizing individual excellence, DEI pushes identity politics into the chain of command. That approach divides more than it unites. Trust and cohesion — core elements of military success — cannot survive a system that prioritizes categories over character.
The military depends on unity to function. DEI erodes that unity. As a governing ethos, it has proven deeply destructive — undermining the very effectiveness the armed forces exist to deliver.
The rise of DEI has created a generation of senior officers who place ideological conformity above military effectiveness. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley spoke openly about “white rage” and promoted critical race theory. His successor, Air Force Gen. CQ Brown, and former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti followed the same script — championing diversity for its own sake while sidelining readiness and merit.
The Trump administration aims to reverse course and re-establish the military’s functional imperative as its central mission. It has issued executive orders with three clear goals: restore meritocracy and nondiscrimination in place of equity quotas; define sex in commonsense terms and respect biological differences; and eliminate divisive programs rooted in critical race theory.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth now carries the mandate to restore the military’s traditional ethos — and put war fighting, not social engineering, back at the heart of military policy.
Standing in opposition to a president elected to root out DEI from the military is a generation of flag and general officers molded by an era of “woke” liberalism. These leaders embraced the demand that the military mirror the politics and ideologies of civil society. Many now cling to the dangerous fiction that the military can remain professional and effective while operating under the dictates of identity politics.
Officers once defended the military’s traditional ethos against efforts to civilianize the chain of command. Today, many senior leaders treat DEI as essential to military identity — and believe they can ignore the lawful orders of the commander in chief. That isn’t leadership. It’s insubordination, plain and simple.
The Trump administration has made clear its intent: restore a professional, apolitical military ethos and rebuild public trust in an institution weakened by a decade of ideological drift. This return to principle marks the path toward healthier civil-military relations — where the armed forces serve their proper purpose: protecting and defending the United States.
In just a few months, the Trump administration has secured major wins for Americans by cutting bloated government, tightening border security, and reasserting U.S. strength abroad.
Now, as its economic agenda gains momentum, the administration is turning its focus toward repatriating wealth and boosting consumer confidence. Supporting the working class will also require renewing the president’s tax cuts — an essential step for sustaining growth and addressing the budget deficit and national debt.
Trump and his team are committed to breaking through the bureaucratic inertia and exposing outdated policy that blocks American competitiveness.
One practical way to pay down that debt is to auction off portions of the communications spectrum — America’s wireless airwaves — to competitive American companies. These firms have built out the high-speed networks we rely on every day. Spectrum auctions have already generated more than $258 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Yet, huge swaths of this valuable asset remain tied up in federal hands.
The last major spectrum auction, conducted under Trump’s first term, raised $22.4 billion. Since then, progress has stalled. The Department of Defense has refused to budge — blocking further releases of spectrum needed to expand 5G access and innovation.
That stonewalling was shaped in part by the rigid posture of former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, who was criticized for backchannel communications with China and accused by President Trump of “treason.” Milley’s legacy of obstruction still casts a shadow over spectrum policy.
No one disputes the need for a strong, modern military. But the Pentagon’s refusal to share spectrum is hurting U.S. economic leadership. The benefits of 5G — greater efficiency, higher speed, and lower latency — depend on unlocking new constellations of network equipment that amplify wireless performance and shrink infrastructure costs.
China understands this. It has deployed the world’s largest 5G network and allocated more than 370% more spectrum than the U.S. It recently became the first country to reach 1 billion 5G connections. At the same time, Beijing has backed cybercriminals and hostile actors that target American infrastructure. The stakes are high — and the risks are real.
Instead of expanding spectrum access to keep pace, the U.S. Defense Department — under Milley’s watch and beyond — has distracted network developers with a “dynamic sharing framework.” This alternative relies on the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, marketed as a new frontier and “fertile ground” for wireless innovation.
In theory, it sounds promising. In practice, the system is riddled with inefficiencies. CBRS simply cannot meet the demands of the next wave of commercial and defense innovation. By clinging to bureaucratic workarounds, the government is slowing progress — and putting the U.S. further behind.
Independent experts have warned that the low broadcast power levels mandated in the CBRS spectrum severely limit performance. Users far from a cell tower face degraded service, while lower-priority operators may get no protection from interference and suffer from chronic congestion. Despite official spin, analysts report little to no meaningful investment or innovation from commercial players.
These dead-end designs stem in part from Milley’s resistance during his tenure to serious discussions about spectrum reform. But this stagnation has allies, even now that he’s gone.
Before the full scope of CBRS’ flaws became clear, cable industry operators placed big bets on it. They hoped new use cases would emerge, but soon realized CBRS couldn’t deliver on its promises. Rather than pivot to better broadband solutions, the cable lobby launched a campaign — “Spectrum for the Future” — aimed at locking competitors into these same flawed systems. The result: lobbying to preserve the status quo while freezing the wireless industry’s progress toward faster, more scalable infrastructure.
The United States cannot afford to cling to the illusion that military control of technology alone secures national strength. Commercial innovation is just as critical. President Trump understands this. As he moves his agenda forward, he and his team are committed to breaking through the bureaucratic inertia and exposing outdated policy that blocks American competitiveness.
We need to unleash more of our nation’s spectrum for commercial use. Anything less weakens consumers at home and cedes technological dominance abroad.
President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday fired the director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Timothy Haugh, according to a report from the Washington Post.
Haugh’s civilian deputy, Wendy Noble, was reportedly removed from her position and reassigned a job with the Department of Defense’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security.
'This is called VETTING.'
The Post also stated that “at least five” National Security Council officials were terminated on Thursday.
The White House has not yet confirmed the reported firings, and therefore, the reasoning for the alleged actions is unclear.
However, Trump stated that he had ousted “some” NSC staffers, the Associated Press reported.
“Always we’re letting go of people,” Trump stated Thursday. “People that we don’t like or people that we don’t think can do the job or people that may have loyalties to somebody else.”
According to the AP, at least three terminated employees were “senior NSC officials” and the others were “lower-ranking aides.”
Pro-Trump activist Laura Loomer appeared to take credit for the alleged shake-up in a post on X, claiming that Haugh and Noble were removed because they were “disloyal” to the president.
She criticized Haugh as a “Biden appointee,” who was “HAND PICKED” by now-retired U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley.
Loomer stated that Haugh was “referred for firing” as well as “his Obama loving protege, Wendy Noble.”
“This is called VETTING,” she declared.
Loomer reportedly advocated for the firings during a recent meeting with Trump.
“Thank you President Trump for being receptive to the vetting materials provided to you and thank you for firing these Biden holdovers,” she stated.
Following her meeting with the president, Trump told reporters, “Laura Loomer is a very good patriot. She’s a very strong person.”
“She makes recommendations of things or people, and sometimes I listen to those recommendations,” he stated.
Trump stated that during their meeting, Loomer “recommended certain people for jobs.”
He stated that Loomer had nothing to do with the fired NSC staffers.
However, in a separate post on X, Loomer appeared also to claim credit for those terminations.
“You know how you know the NSC officials I reported to President Trump are disloyal people who have played a role in sabotaging Donald Trump?” she wrote. “Because the fired officials are being defended by... Jen Psaki & Andrew McCabe on MSNBC & CNN RIGHT NOW.”
The White House did not respond to requests for comment from the Washington Post or the New York Post. The NSA referred the New York Post to the DOD, which also did not respond.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, and others with questionable track records received controversial pardons just prior to Joe Biden leaving office.
New signature analysis conducted by the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project indicates that the "same exact Biden autopen signature" appeared on each of these pardons.
This revelation regarding the use of an automatic signature device, coupled with evidence of Biden's diminished agency while in office and previous allegations concerning his sidelining, has prompted some critics to wonder who was actually dispensing pardons as well as about the validity of the controversial pardons.
Contrary to CNN's assertion last year that the use of the autopen was "a rarity in the Biden administration," the Oversight Project reported Thursday that nearly every executive order, pardon, and other consequential document researchers could find from Biden's presidency bore a machine-generated signature.
While other presidents, including Donald Trump and Barack Obama, have used the so-called autopen, there are indications that document signings during Biden's tenure were repeatedly undertaken while he was absent — not only in body but possibly also in mind.
The Oversight Project indicated that in one instance, Biden's oft-used autopen signature appeared on the pardons for a murderer and five other criminals that were issued while the then-president was vacationing and golfing in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The pardons all reportedly indicated that they were signed "at the City of Washington."
'The autopen findings could open up legal challenges.'
The White House acknowledged that the Federal Aviation Administration funding extension was signed in May 2024 using an autopen. It was suggested that Biden, traveling in San Francisco at the time, had sought to avoid a lapse in funding and was cognizant of this taking place.
Biden has, however, cast doubt on whether he was always in the loop when documents were being signed in his name.
The former president allegedly told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he did not remember signing a January 2024 order to pause decisions on exports of liquefied natural gas. This suggestion fueled suspicions that one or more individuals in Biden's orbit had usurped presidential powers.
"The main legal question here is who was the president over the last four years," Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell previously told Blaze News. "That's what we are aiming to uncover. The prolific use of autopen by the Biden White House was an instrument to hide the truth from the American people as to who was running the government."
The Oversight Project emphasized on X that "WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY."
On Jan. 20, just hours before leaving the Oval Office, Biden allegedly issued a number of pardons, citing the need to protect the recipients from potential "revenge" by the incoming Trump administration.
Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whom Trump has accused of committing "treason," nabbed a pardon, as did several members of Biden's family who were apparently involved in sleazy foreign deals with the former president and his felonious son Hunter Biden; Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, California Sen. Adam Schiff (D), and other members of the Jan. 6 committee; D.C. Metro Police officers who testified before the Jan. 6 committee; and Gerald Lundergan, the former head of the Kentucky state Democratic Party who served as state chair for Hillary Clinton's failed 2008 presidential campaign and was convicted in 2019 of making illegal campaign contributions.
'It appears staffers and officers in the Biden administration may have exploited Biden's incapacity.'
Fauci, the fifth director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also among the pardonees, received a "full and unconditional" pass for possible federal crimes going back to Jan. 1, 2014 — around the time the Obama administration supposedly halted funding for dangerous gain-of-function research.
Despite the pardon, a coalition of state attorneys general indicated last month that they still want to hold Fauci accountable for "alleged mismanagement, misleading statements, and suppression of scientific debate."
Fauci, like the others, might be more exposed than the state attorneys general may have originally thought.
After demonstrating that the signature on the pardons was identical, the Oversight Projected noted, "The autopen findings could open up legal challenges to the validity of Biden's pardons in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution requires a president be 'present' for all legal signatures."
The Oversight Project indicated that with the exception of the Democrat's announcement indicating that he was dropping out of the 2024 race, every document researchers could find bearing Biden's signature "used the same autopen signature."
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said of the watchdog group's finding, "On the plus side, we can say we lived under America's first robot president."
Howell posed the question, "What should happen to these 'pardons'?" then indicated with a brief video that they should be torn up.
President Trump's U.S. envoy for special missions, Richard Grenell, stated, "Biden didn't sign the pardons."
Blaze News previously reported that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has called on the Department of Justice to launch a full investigation into the legality of Biden's presidential actions in light of his apparent mental decline.
— (@)
"Under the 25th Amendment, his inability to make decisions should have meant a succession of power," Bailey noted in his letter. "Instead, it appears staffers and officers in the Biden administration may have exploited Biden's incapacity so they could issue orders without an accountable President of sound mind approving them."
"It is black-letter law that a document is void, ab initio, when the person signing it lacks mental capacity," added Bailey.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Republican Sens. Jim Banks of Indiana and Chuck Grassley of Iowa are seeking answers about the Pentagon’s inquiry into retired Gen. Mark Milley’s “alleged misconduct” during his time leading the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The nation’s highest-ranking military officer has a solemn responsibility to set an example of excellence and to model good conduct for […]
Politics is the domain of the president, not the oath-bearing members of the uniformed services.
In a 60-25 bipartisan vote, the U.S. Senate voted early Friday morning to confirm retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine as the next chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All “no” votes came from Democrats, with 15 senators not voting. For him to assume the positon, the Senate also agreed to promote […]
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., defended former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Mark Milley for allegedly telling his Chinese counterpart he’d warn Beijing of a prospective U.S.-led attack on China by the Trump administration. The moment came during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan Caine before the Senate Armed Services Committee. President […]
Mark Milley is one of several military officers who deserve accountability for the damage they've done to the force.
www.theblaze.com