In February, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made headlines by firing top lawyers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, aiming to remove obstacles that could slow military actions. The move raised concerns, with some experts suggesting it could be a step toward breaking the law. A recent report from The Guardian reveals that Hegseth plans a broader overhaul of the military’s legal system, focusing on loosening restrictions related to armed conflict laws. This plan has sparked a debate over whether it could increase military aggressiveness and undermine civilian protection efforts.
Hegseth’s Push to Reshape the Military Legal Framework
Pete Hegseth’s overhaul of the U.S. military’s legal structure is drawing widespread attention. The reported plan, which has not been independently verified by major news outlets like MSNBC or NBC News, aims to retrain military lawyers to provide broader legal guidance to commanders. This shift would encourage more aggressive tactics on the battlefield and take a lenient approach to charging soldiers with battlefield crimes. Hegseth’s goal appears to be making the military less restricted by the laws of armed conflict, potentially leading to more controversial actions in future military engagements.
Firing Legal Experts: A Bold Strategy for More Aggressive Tactics
In early 2025, Pete Hegseth dismissed high-ranking military lawyers to remove perceived roadblocks in military decision-making. Some experts, such as Georgetown Law professor Rosa Brooks, have criticized this move, suggesting it could be part of a strategy to circumvent legal challenges in military operations. Brooks argued that removing military lawyers could be a sign of preparing for actions that would disregard established laws.
In addition to firing military lawyers, Hegseth’s initiative to retrain military legal staff would allow for more expansive legal advice, enabling commanders to adopt aggressive tactics. Critics argue that this could lead to more violations of human rights and increase the likelihood of unnecessary civilian casualties, especially considering the U.S. military’s track record in conflict zones.
Concerns Over Human Rights and Civilian Protection
Hegseth’s proposal comes at a time when the U.S. military is under heavy scrutiny for its actions abroad, particularly regarding civilian casualties. Over the years, the U.S. military has faced numerous accusations of disregarding civilian life, especially in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics argue that less oversight from military lawyers could lead to more disregard for civilian protection.
Under the previous administration, efforts were made to address civilian harm through the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Office and the Civilian Protection Center. These offices aimed to reduce civilian deaths and improve accountability for military actions. However, Hegseth’s recent moves signal a shift in priorities. According to reports, Hegseth has framed these offices as obstacles, potentially dismantling key efforts to protect civilian lives in combat zones.
Retired U.S. Army General Joseph Votel voiced concerns about these cuts, stating that removing civilian protection offices would hinder the military’s ability to operate effectively and ethically. Votel emphasized that these offices played a crucial role in educating military personnel on minimizing harm to non-combatants, arguing that eliminating them could undermine the military’s efforts to become a smarter, more responsible force.
Hegseth’s Views on Combat and the Military’s “Softness”
Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has been vocal about what he perceives as the U.S. military’s growing “softness.” He has often criticized the military for being held back by “wokeness” and rules that limit its effectiveness. In his book The War on Warriors, Hegseth recounts his experience in the Army National Guard during the George W. Bush administration, claiming that overly restrictive rules of engagement and political correctness hindered military operations.
For Hegseth, these rules are part of what he calls a “warrior ethos” that he believes is necessary to strengthen the military’s resolve. However, critics argue that the real problem was not too many rules, but rather a lack of accountability and oversight, which contributed to unnecessary harm and human rights abuses in past conflicts.
Controversial Appointments and Military Leadership Changes
In addition to his legal reforms, Hegseth has also made controversial personnel changes. Notably, he appointed Timothy Parlatore, his personal lawyer, as a Navy commander within the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps. Parlatore has a history of representing soldiers accused of grave misconduct, including war crimes. His most high-profile case involved Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was court-martialed for the murder of a captured fighter, though he was only convicted on lesser charges.
Parlatore’s appointment raises questions about the direction of military leadership under Hegseth. Critics, including former U.S. Army officer Jason Dempse, argue that Parlatore’s legal philosophy could further erode the moral integrity of the U.S. military. This move reflects Hegseth’s broader strategy of promoting more aggressive tactics and disregarding the importance of legal oversight.
Hegseth’s Vision for U.S. Military Policy: A Troubling Trend
Hegseth’s approach to defense policy aligns with broader trends in his political philosophy. He advocates for a strongman-style leadership and a disregard for legal constraints, reflecting a growing appetite for unchecked military power. This vision stands in stark contrast to previous efforts to make the military more accountable and humanitarian in its operations.
The changes spearheaded by Hegseth could have far-reaching consequences, not only for U.S. military conduct but also for the broader international community. As the world’s most powerful military, the U.S. sets the tone for global military engagement, and any shift toward more aggressive, unrestrained tactics could have ripple effects in conflict zones worldwide.
The sweeping changes proposed by Pete Hegseth are likely to face intense scrutiny and opposition. As the military legal system is overhauled and more personnel aligned with Hegseth’s vision are appointed, it remains to be seen how these shifts will affect U.S. military operations. While some argue that these changes will strengthen the military’s effectiveness, others fear that they could lead to a more callous and less accountable force.
