Does Donald Trump really have the power to fire military leaders?

The authority of United States presidents over the military has always been a sensitive issue, and the question has returned to the spotlight under Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, at a rare gathering of America’s top generals and admirals in Quantico, Virginia, Trump declared his intention to fire senior officers who oppose his agenda.

Alongside him, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth warned military leaders to resign if they disagreed with the sweeping reforms he is implementing.

The event — part rally, part policy announcement — drew starkly different reactions across the political aisle.

Democrats condemned Trump’s remarks as dangerous and authoritarian, while Republicans praised his message as a needed restoration of strength.

But beyond the political fireworks lies the core constitutional question: does a president actually have the unilateral power to fire generals and admirals?

How Trump & Hegseth challenged the US military

The Tuesday (September 30, 2025) summit at Quantico was unlike any typical military leadership meeting.

Hundreds of generals and admirals were summoned from bases across the world for a high-profile event that many saw as an attempt to consolidate Trump’s influence over the armed forces.

Ahead of the gathering, Trump stated, “I’m going to be meeting with generals and with admirals and with leaders, and if I don’t like somebody, I’m going to fire them right on the spot.”

At a point in his speech, he said, “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future, but you just feel nice and loose, ok?”

The president’s hour-long address touched on issues far beyond the military. He defended his trade tariffs, spoke about nuclear weapons — controversially referring to them as “the N-word” — and suggested that using troops in American cities could serve as valuable training exercises.

“Last month, I signed an executive order to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances,” Trump said.

“So this is going to be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control.”

Trump has already ordered deployments of National Guard units and active-duty Marines to cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Memphis, and Washington, DC, citing violent crime and protests against immigration enforcement.

Earlier this year, Marines were sent to Los Angeles despite objections from local officials. He has now announced plans to expand such deployments to Portland, Oregon.

Hegseth, a longtime Trump ally and former Fox News host, followed the president with his own scathing address. “If the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, you should do the honourable thing and resign,” he told the commanders.

He condemned diversity programmes in the military, labelled the Pentagon as suffering from “woke” decay and attacked senior leaders as being out of shape.

“Fat generals and admirals” had no place in his vision for the armed forces, he said.

Hegseth also unveiled policy changes requiring twice-yearly fitness tests and body fat checks. Troops in combat roles, such as infantry and tank crews, will now have to meet male-based fitness benchmarks regardless of gender, and also complete a separate combat field test annually.

While acknowledging that women would face stricter standards, he argued, “This is not about preventing women from serving.”

How politicians reacted to Trump’s threats

The immediate responses from political leaders highlighted just how polarising Trump’s approach to the military has become.

California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump’s words, writing on X, “Declaring war on our nation’s cities and using our troops as political pawns is what dictators do. This man cares about nothing but his own ego and power.”

This speech should terrify anyone who cares about our country.

Declaring war on our nation’s cities and using our troops as political pawns is what dictators do.

This man cares about nothing but his own ego and power. https://t.co/bEvkspNH4L

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) September 30, 2025

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker issued his own rebuke, “Our troops and our nation deserve better than you acting as a petty tyrant.”

US Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, criticised the Quantico event as “an expensive, dangerous dereliction of leadership by the Trump Administration.”

The meeting, which brought together military leaders from across the globe just days before a potential government shutdown, carried significant costs.

Republican lawmakers, however, offered a dramatically different view. US Congressman August Pfluger described Hegseth’s remarks as “inspiring” and encouraged Americans to listen to them.

US Senator Lindsey Graham praised Trump’s message, saying, “It is a breath of fresh air to see a Commander in Chief expressing unending pride in our military and being strong without apology.”

The generals and admirals present, meanwhile, reacted cautiously.

Observers reported little visible response during the speeches, with most officers sitting silently before quickly exiting the auditorium to return to their posts.

What Trump’s history of removing senior officers tells us

The Quantico event was not the first time Trump acted on his threats against the military leadership.

In February, he dismissed General Charles Q Brown Jr, who had been serving as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with the chief of naval operations, the vice chief of staff of the Air Force, and three of the Pentagon’s top legal officials.

To replace Brown, Trump nominated retired Air Force Lt Gen. Dan Caine, a three-star officer who legally required a special waiver to be considered for the position, since only four-star generals typically qualify.

US Presidents do have the power to grant such waivers, subject to Senate approval. This decision highlights how aggressively Trump was willing to reshape the military’s leadership in line with his priorities.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump had already signalled this approach. He promised to remove officers associated with US President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as those tied to diversity programmes or to former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, whom Trump accused of “treason.”

Now, with Hegseth installed as US Defense Secretary, Trump has sought to turn those campaign threats into policy.

One of Trump’s most controversial threats has been his repeated accusation that former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley committed “treason.”

Trump has hinted at the idea of recalling Milley to active duty for court-martial proceedings.

But according to current law, service secretaries may only recall retired officers under limited circumstances, such as manpower shortages in specific fields — not to settle political grievances.

If Trump were to pursue a case against Milley, it would almost certainly need to take place in a civilian court. Experts agree that a treason charge against a retired general would be unlikely to result in conviction.

What the US constitutional says on presidential authority

While Trump’s rhetoric suggests a sweeping power to dismiss generals, the legal and constitutional framework of the United States imposes strict limits on such actions.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution does indeed establish the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

This role allows presidents to direct military strategy, relieve officers from specific commands, and appoint new leaders — actions taken historically by presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Harry Truman.

Truman’s decision to relieve General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, for instance, was upheld by Congress following a detailed inquiry.

However, Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the authority to “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.”

Exercising this power, Congress passed the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in 1950, creating the legal foundation for the modern military justice system.

A crucial statute dating back to the post-Civil War era remains in force today.

It stipulates that commissioned officers may only be dismissed in three situations: by a general court-martial sentence, by presidential commutation of such a sentence, or “in time of war, by order of the President.”

This last provision raises a thorny legal question: what constitutes a “time of war”?

Retired Air Force Major General Charles Dunlap has noted that US law offers no single definition, reported Brookings.

Some statutes require a formal declaration of war by Congress, while others refer more broadly to armed conflicts. If Trump attempted to claim that the US is at war in order to dismiss generals outright, it could set off a legal battle reaching the Supreme Court.

What is role of the Congress

Legal scholars point out that congressional authority over the military is extensive and has historically been backed by the Supreme Court.

In Chappell v. Wallace (1983), the Court affirmed that the Constitution grants Congress “plenary control” over military rights, duties, and responsibilities.

In Loving v. United States (1996), the Court reiterated its deference to Congress in shaping military affairs.

From the Revolutionary War onward, military leadership has operated within boundaries defined by legislation and congressional oversight.

This means that while Trump can reassign commanders and remove them from key posts, he does not hold unilateral power to expel officers from the military unless the nation is formally at war.

Any attempt to bypass Congress in this area would likely face swift judicial review.

Central to this debate is the oath taken by US military officers. That oath binds them not to any particular president, but to the Constitution of the United States.

Officers are required to follow lawful orders from their commander-in-chief, but their ultimate duty is to uphold US constitutional principles.

Also Watch:

With inputs from agencies

Go to Source