News
‘Accelerated Autocracy’: Why Hegseth’s Firing of Top Military Attorneys Is Raising Alarms
President Donald Trump’s Friday night firing of the nation’s highest-ranking military official, coupled with U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s sweeping purge of senior military leaders and top military attorneys—removing a total of six of the Defense Department’s most experienced officials—has sparked serious concern among experts.
On Friday night, Trump terminated the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown, from his four-year appointed term. No reason was given.
Immediately after, Secretary Hegseth dismissed Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the chief of the Navy, and Air Force Vice-Chief General James Slife.
He also fired all three of the Judge Advocates General (JAGs, or TJAGs), the top attorneys for the Army, Navy, and Air Force — a move some experts say should be the greatest cause for concern.
READ MORE: ‘I’m — We Are the Federal Law’: Trump Blasted for Attack on Dem Governor
On “Fox News Sunday,” Secretary Hegseth explained his reasoning for the JAG firings.
“We want lawyers who give sound constitutional advice,” Hegseth told host Shannon Bream. “And don’t exist to attempt to be roadblocks to anything that happens in their spots.”
As Law & Crime reports, “Bream brought up an X post, specifically, from Georgetown Law professor Rosa Brooks, which said: ‘In some ways that’s even more chilling than firing the four stars. 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.'”
Hegseth says firing of top military lawyers was about making sure “they don’t exist to be roadblocks to anything that happens.” pic.twitter.com/JuxhmHARrM
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 23, 2025
Indeed, The New York Times calls the firings “an opening salvo” in Hegseth’s “push to remake the military into a force that is more aggressive on the battlefield and potentially less hindered by the laws of armed conflict.”
“Mr. Hegseth, in the Pentagon and during his meetings with troops last week in Europe, has spoken repeatedly about the need to restore a ‘warrior ethos’ to a military that he insists has become soft, social-justice obsessed and more bureaucratic over the past two decades.”
Experts on the law, the military, and authoritarianism and democracy are raising the alarm.
“The purge of senior officers at DOD is deeply troubling, but purging JAG officers worries me the most,” warned U.S. Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), a former Army Captain who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. “JAG officers interpret law for our commanders. They help determine what’s lawful and constitutional. Replacing these military lawyers with [Trump] loyalists is so dangerous.”
Professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders, responded to Hegseth’s “roadblocks” remark:
“Well that is the truth. All of this is a process of rearranging government for an accelerated transition from democracy to autocracy. That includes a new domestic role for the military and new autocratic allies abroad.”
U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, called the firings a “purge of senior officers who have served with distinction on the battlefield and off,” and said it “should send a shiver down the spine of any American who cares about an apolitical military.”
“No matter how they try and spin it,” she added, Trump and Hegseth “have brought their political retribution to the very warfighters they claim to care about. And we are no safer for it.”
Describing the firings as “an unprecedented shakeup of senior military leadership,” Associate Professor of Law Mark Nevitt—a former Distinguished Military Professor of Leadership and Law at the U.S. Naval Academy—warns at Just Security of “Trump’s purge of apolitical career officers.”
READ MORE: Trump’s USPS Takeover Plan a ‘Reckless Power Grab’ Endangering Mail-In Voting: Critics
“Make no mistake,” Nevitt writes in a lengthy and detailed explainer, “these firings are extraordinary and destabilize a longstanding norm of separating uniformed military members from politics. It is not an overstatement to characterize these firings as unprecedented and dangerous. What’s more, this purge is occurring against a backdrop of massively complex national security challenges in Ukraine, the Middle East, and beyond.”
On Trump’s firing of the JAG lawyers, Kevin Barron, the founding executive editor of Defense One writes: “Trump is also replacing the military’s top lawyers, who swear to defend the Constitution, with loyalists who will defend him. That’s Hegseth building in pure cover fire for ‘King’ Trump. If Trump has automatic SCOTUS immunity, so could his retribution orders to the military.”
Fred Wellman is a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School, an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, and is now a political consultant and the host of the podcast and Substack newsletter, “On Democracy.”
“They fired the top lawyers of all three service branches. That’s the really dark part,” Wellman declared, referring to the JAG firings. “This is the most dangerous move yet,” he wrote, calling it a “Friday Night Massacre.”
“When I was the Public Affairs Officer for six different general officers in the latter part of my career in the Army, my best friend was always the Judge Advocate General of the command,” Wellman explained. “The good JAGs are unafraid to speak truth to power and ensure the law is followed to the letter. Pete Hegseth hates those JAGs. This is a man that openly supported and campaigned for the pardons of multiple war criminals who were justifiably prosecuted and convicted based on evidence from fellow service members for the torture and murder of civilians in combat.”
Wellman appears to suggest that firing the JAG attorneys could precede possible enactment of the Insurrection Act.
“When you run out the reasons to fire the lawyers by a SecDef and President who do not respect the rule of law, it is clear that the intent is to remove barriers from breaking the laws and military regulations,” he said. “The obvious reason is usually the right one.”
“We know that Project 2025 and Agenda 47 both included references to enacting the Insurrection Act and using military forces to put down public protest and assist in mass deportations and interments. Lawyers with a loose relationship with the law would happily approve actions that skirt the letter of the law and provide legal cover for outrageous uses of our apolitical military against our own people.”
And he suggests those three fired JAG lawyers could have been the “guardrails” to stop a possible invasion of Mexico, Canada, Greenland, or Panama — or the use of the military against American citizens, should Trump choose to do so.
“Who do you think are the people that would have interpreted international law, military regulations, and treaty obligations when the military is ordered to carry out air strikes and raids in Mexico against the newly designated ‘international terrorist’ drug cartels?” Wellman posits. “Who do you think will be advising the service chiefs on use of their forces for seizing the Panama Canal, Greenland, or the utterly comical, but entirely real chance of an invasion of Canada?”
“What about looking at the law and military regulations on the use of force against civilians? Remember, the former SecDef refused to order troops to shoot protestors in the legs under Trump’s first regime. I have no doubt that Hegseth with the right lawyers won’t share that restraint next time.”
Watch the video above or at this link.
READ MORE: ‘Played Like a Fiddle’: RFK Jr. Signals Plan to Renege on Confirmation Commitments
Image via Reuters
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
