Is the US poised for a new civilian-military crisis?

President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed hundreds of high-level US military officials on September 30.

The meeting was held after the Pentagon suddenly asked top commanders from around the world to convene at a base in Virginia. 

No public reason was revealed beforehand, which added to the sense of mystery and urgency.

Meetings between top military leaders and civilian authorities are not rare in the United States, but many believe that the scale of this gathering, the haste with which it was organised, and the public secrecy surrounding it made this one particularly unusual.

In their addresses, both Trump and Hegseth made polemical and sharp statements regarding the Pentagon’s future corporate identity and US security and defence policy. 

Trump stated that the greatest threat to the US comes from within, emphasising that domestic threats are those that must be dealt with first and foremost.

Hegseth, on the other hand, touched on many debated topics, ranging from beard policy in the department to fitness standards linked to gender issues.

Among these remarks, the most controversial was his demand that generals should not be “fat”.

This gathering, which critics quipped “could have been an email,” as the meme goes, in fact carries serious implications for the future of US national security and civil-military relations.

New page in civil-military ties

The US has never experienced a coup or even an attempt, but this does not mean civil-military relations have been flawless. 

While professional spheres are deeply institutionalised, the relationship between the Pentagon and civilian administrations has always carried tensions.

Especially after the end of the Cold War, the declining relevance of the Pentagon created debates over budget politics. Without a major geopolitical threat, the justification for the military to consume vast resources weakened. 

The US was expected to downsize its military budget in the long run. Yet the 9/11 attacks proved a decisive turning point. The military establishment quickly returned to central importance, with dramatically increased relevance and far greater budgetary demands.

The Pentagon saw an unprecedented expansion of funding in its history. The US rolled out new programmes and projects to align with its so-called ‘war on terror’, which became both a political and military priority for the country.

Traditionally, the primary source of crisis in civil-military relations has been disagreements regarding the use of military force  

As a great power, the US resorts to military action more than any other state. 

At times, this led to the civilian leadership urging military interventions that generals resisted. At other moments, top generals pushed for the use of force that civilians opposed. 

This back-and-forth has long been a central feature of American civil-military debates.

In more recent years, however, these debates have shifted. Civil-military relations, shaped by the deepening social and political polarisation, now extend to domestic issues that were once secondary. 

Chief among these are identity politics issues related to race, gender, and broader cultural topics. In earlier decades, such issues occasionally surfaced but never with the intensity that they do today. 

Now, they dominate not only public discourse but also internal military debates.

Beyond identity politics and the so-called “war on woke,” Hegseth’s plans for reforming the US military are expected to create another major area of conflict.

According to US media, senior officers, including General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have expressed concerns about Hegseth’s approach to the Pentagon. 

Hegseth is preparing to initiate an overhaul of the military’s top leadership and structure. 

By pledging to reduce the roughly 800 generals and admirals by 20 percent and to reconfigure US combatant commands, he is signalling a comprehensive transformation that would significantly reshape the military establishment.

The new national security papers

In the context of these recent debates, America's new national security strategy (NSS) document is also a significant item on the agenda. 

This document, soon to be completed, will guide the national defence strategy, which in turn will shape the national military strategy. These three papers together will determine how America conceives of its security threats and priorities over the coming years.

The new NSS may reduce US military involvement in Africa and Europe while narrowing the scope of Washington’s long-term rivalry with China. 

Moreover, the document is also expected to combine both Trump's ‘America first’ and ‘Peace through strength’ rhetoric.

Recall that Trump’s first-term national security strategy emphasised Russia and China as the primary focus, rather than counterterrorism. 

It was framed around the premise of “the return of great power politics.” 

However, Trump’s statements at the Virginia meeting, stressing domestic threats, together with his repeated remarks about crime and insecurity in American cities, suggest that the new national security strategy may place domestic threats at the very centre.

Civil liberties and national security

If this proves to be the case, new debates will inevitably emerge regarding civil liberties in the United States. 

Many are sceptical about the extent to which the government should address domestic threats. 

One can reasonably expect that issues such as freedom of expression and the right to protest will continue to preoccupy American public life in the coming period. 

From one angle, the Virginia event may appear to be another Trump and Hegseth political show that gathers hundreds of generals and admirals. 

From another angle, however, it stands as a more significant event. The US is actively preparing a new national security strategy, and Trump addressed issues that go far beyond traditional foreign policy. 

The meeting was therefore not only a show but also a general overview delivered by two top civilian leaders.

The US military’s role in political debates was tied to the use of force abroad. 

Under Trump, this pattern is shifting. Now the military has become a focal point of debates about gender, fitness, and cultural issues. 

With Hegseth now leading the Pentagon, these debates have only become more visible and contentious. 

If the Trump administration places domestic threats at the centre of its security strategy, civil-military debates will not only continue but will intensify further.