President Trump’s decision to fire Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General C.Q. Brown, along with five other top military leaders, has sent shockwaves through Washington. Some see it as a necessary course correction for a military that has lost its focus. Others see it as a dangerous power grab, replacing independent-minded leaders with Trump loyalists.

Predictably, liberal commentators are outraged, claiming Trump’s decision was driven by race, gender, and political revenge. Conservatives, meanwhile, argue that the military has been infected by political correctness and misplaced priorities—and that these firings are a step toward restoring our armed forces’ core mission: deterring, fighting, and winning wars.

So, let’s step back and ask: What does this shake-up really mean for the military, for America, and for the future of our national defense?

DEI Should Never Trump Merit

One of the loudest complaints from the left is that Trump fired Brown because he is black and Admiral Lisa Franchetti because she is a woman. Max Boot at The Washington Post wrote that “it is hard to avoid the conclusion” that race and gender played a role in their firings.

That’s nonsense.

The real issue here is that diversity should never be a qualification for leadership—it should be a natural byproduct of a merit-based system. The military’s only priority should be finding and promoting the best leaders, period. If they happen to be black, white, male, female, or anything else, so be it. But making race, gender, or identity a factor in promotions undermines the very effectiveness of our armed forces.

Brown, for example, is a highly accomplished pilot with over 3,100 flight hours in an F-16, including 130 in combat. That’s impressive. But he also used his platform for political activism, such as when he released a video in the wake of George Floyd’s death saying, “As the commander of Pacific Air Forces, and a senior leader in our Air Force, and an African American, many of you may be wondering what I’m thinking.”

Well, no. What Americans should be wondering is whether the Air Force was prepared for war, deterring China, and strengthening its recruitment efforts—not how its top general felt about a domestic political issue. The military is not a social justice seminar. It is the blunt instrument of American power, and its leaders should act accordingly.

The same goes for Franchetti. The Navy has been struggling under her leadership. The newest aircraft carriers, CVN-80 and CVN-81, are behind schedule due to a lack of parts and workers. The Navy is also missing its recruitment goals and falling behind China’s shipbuilding. These are major problems, and if Trump believes she wasn’t the right person to fix them, he was well within his right to make a change.

At the end of the day, it’s not about race or gender—it’s about performance. And if a leader isn’t delivering, the commander-in-chief has every right to replace them.

The Dangers of Blind Loyalty

While Trump is right to focus on restoring military effectiveness, there’s another potential problem: Is he surrounding himself with people who will tell him the truth, or just those who will say “yes” to whatever he wants?

One of the biggest criticisms of these firings is that Trump is punishing leaders who refused to show absolute loyalty. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) argued that Trump is sending a message: Fall in line or be removed. Others worry that Trump is clearing out the military’s top legal officers (the Judge Advocate Generals, or JAGs) so that he can install people who will rubber-stamp questionable decisions.

That’s a legitimate concern.

The role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—or any military leader—is not to serve as a yes-man. Their job is to provide sound military advice, even when it contradicts what the president wants to hear. That’s why some of Trump’s previous military picks, like General James Mattis and General Mark Milley, butted heads with him.

Now, was Milley a disaster? Yes. He undermined the chain of command by calling his Chinese counterpart behind Trump’s back. But that doesn’t mean we should go to the other extreme and replace independent-minded leaders with personal loyalists. The military should always prioritize the Constitution over the president, no matter who is in office.

We should watch Trump’s next moves carefully. If he installs strong, independent leaders who will challenge him when needed, this shake-up will be a success. If he fills these roles with political appointees who only tell him what he wants to hear, that could weaken our national security.

The Bigger Issue: A Declining Military

At the heart of this debate is a bigger problem: Our military is falling behind.

• Recruitment is in crisis. The Army, Navy, and Air Force all missed their recruiting goals last year. The younger generation isn’t as eager to serve, and the military isn’t adapting fast enough.
• Weapons procurement is lagging. The Navy’s aircraft carriers and submarines are behind schedule. The Air Force’s F-35 program is riddled with delays.
• China is surging ahead. While we argue over DEI and climate change, China is rapidly expanding its naval fleet and strengthening its military capabilities in the Pacific.

These are existential threats. And if Trump’s shake-up means a return to a warfighting-first mindset, then it’s absolutely the right move.

For example, the Navy needs a leader who prioritizes aircraft carrier construction. The Navy’s ability to project power in the Pacific depends on having more carriers, not fewer. If Trump replaces Franchetti with a carrier-focused admiral who understands this urgency, that will be a major win.

Likewise, the Air Force needs to focus on readiness, not social issues. It needs to fix pilot shortages, ramp up training, and prepare for the high-tech conflicts of the future.

If Trump’s new leadership team addresses these challenges, the military will be stronger for it.

The Right Reform, But the Right People Matter

At the end of the day, Trump was right to clean house—but whether this is a good decision depends entirely on who replaces these leaders.

• If Trump installs competent, battle-tested officers who will refocus the military on readiness, this will be a defining moment for America’s armed forces.
• But if he installs loyalists who won’t push back against bad decisions, it could backfire badly.

We don’t need a military that answers to leftist ideology. But we also don’t need a military that blindly follows any one leader—Trump included. The military must always put national security above politics.

Trump’s next moves will tell us whether this shake-up is about restoring warfighting excellence or consolidating political power. Let’s pray it’s the former. Because if we get this wrong, America’s enemies won’t care about our politics.

They’ll just see a weaker military—and they’ll act accordingly.