Generals Criticize Hegseth, Establishment Loses Perspective

Generals Are Whining That Hegseth Has ‘Lost’ Them, but the Facts Say They’ve Lost the Plot

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is facing fresh accusations that he has “lost the trust and respect of some top military commanders,” a claim based largely on anonymous sources. The account paints his public style as “grandstanding” and says personnel moves under his watch have produced an unprecedented exodus from the Pentagon.

The critique reduces Hegseth to the image of a former cable TV host who supposedly cannot think beyond small-unit concerns, yet it provides little concrete proof that his policies harm readiness. Much of the complaint focuses on tone and theater rather than demonstrable operational failure.

The most commonly voiced rebukes revolve around a single meeting on September 30 and the reaction from several senior officers who viewed it as a public sideshow. Those critiques are quoted directly and forcefully, capturing the raw anger among certain flag officers.

• “It was a massive waste of time. … If he ever had us, he lost us,” one current Army general told The Washington Times.
• It was “embarrassing” and theatrical to a degree that “is below our institution.”
• “The theater of it all is below our institution,” the officer said. “Several of these changes are being made already by the services. And they could be made by any secretary. … They don’t have to be announced on stage in public in this grandstanding kind of way.”

Another strand of criticism accuses Hegseth of focusing on grooming and fitness at the expense of operational strategy, implying he is stuck in the mindset of a midgrade officer. That complaint tends to conflate attention to discipline with triviality, ignoring the link between basic standards and unit effectiveness.

• “Not about f——— haircuts,” the current Army general told The Times, referring to Mr. Hegseth’s deep focus on grooming standards, a view expressed by numerous sources.
• Another source described it as “the mentality of a midgrade officer” who is deeply focused on fitness, grooming standards, and other issues that typically don’t reach the desk of the defense secretary.
• “Hegseth’s focus on fitness, weight and appearance reflects his experiences as a junior officer. These are perennial challenges at the small unit level; anyone who has commanded a small unit in the military understands where he’s coming from,” [Retired Marine Corps Col. Mark Cancian, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies] wrote. “However, if his military experience had been at higher levels, he would have discussed strategy, threats and warfighting at the operational level. As it was, these topics were nearly absent from his remarks.”

Critics warn of damage to the Pentagon’s reputation and structure, claiming attrition among generals and senior civilians signals a loss of talent. Those alarms often cite vague concerns about “meritocracy” being undermined and the possibility that promotions are influenced by favoritism rather than performance.

• “Mainly what I see from him are not serious things,” a current senior officer said. “It’s, ’Why did this service member tweet this?’ Or internal politics and drama. That’s mostly what I see.”
• High-level sources said that they believe Mr. Hegseth is simultaneously doing deep damage to the military, both from a public relations standpoint and structurally behind the scenes, that may not be fully apparent until months or even years from now. They say Mr. Hegseth’s insistence that the Pentagon will embrace a color- and gender-blind meritocracy is at odds with reality inside the Defense Department, which President Trump has given the secondary title “War Department.”
• “Across the services, we are bleeding talent, talented generals and flag officers, for what appears to be the opposite of a meritocracy,” another current senior officer said. “There are people being held back from promotions, or being fired, or removed for sometimes unknown reasons, often for favoritism, or just simple relationships.”

On the flip side, measurable indicators suggest some positive trends under Hegseth’s leadership: recruiting is up and certain procurement efforts, like small tactical drones, have accelerated. Supporters argue these are real results that matter more than the discomfort of some senior officers.

• Some analysts are quick to point out that military recruiting has surged since Mr. Hegseth took his post earlier this year. Supporters cite that as clear evidence that Mr. Hegseth’s approach is resonating with at least a subsection of young Americans and, in the process, is strengthening the armed forces.
• The officer stressed that there is strong support for some of the policy changes Mr. Hegseth laid out at Quantico, including tougher fitness standards, reforms to the Pentagon inspector general’s office and changes to how complaints against officers are filed and investigated, with an understanding in the ranks that sometimes false or trumped-up accusations of racism, for example, have been used to unfairly damage careers.

A well-known defense analyst who has never served in uniform offered a critique worth noting and also included some praise, recognizing both risk and useful initiatives. His comments reflect the mixed reaction outside uniformed ranks and underline that policy moves can be debated without descending into personal attacks.

“Secretary Hegseth’s proclivity to pursue the so-called culture wars at the Department of Defense is a distraction and is causing considerable anxiety among many. He overstates the supposed fixation of earlier administrations on wokeness and distorts the effect that bringing women into more combat positions has had on the U.S. military,” said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.

“However, in fairness, we have not yet seen substantial negative effects on recruiting or retention,” Mr. O’Hanlon told The Times. “Encouragingly, Hegseth has been rather stalwart in defense of Asia-Pacific alliances in particular. His springtime planning exercise requiring the military services to show how they could repurpose 8% of their budgets was potentially useful, at least as a brainstorming device.”

The fallout really looks like a culture clash: a drive for renewed standards colliding with an entrenched senior corps comfortable with the status quo. Those who shout loudest about style often ignore whether changed standards actually improve unit cohesion and combat readiness.

Discipline, attention to detail, and loyalty remain the backbone of military effectiveness, and arguments about whether those traits are “theater” miss the point. The debate over Hegseth is less about a single personality and more about what kind of military leaders and institutions the nation wants going forward.