American Flag Officers Don't Get It: Sliding Civil-Military Relations Norms

On February 29^th, Donald Trump toured the Texas border as part of a campaign event hosted by Governor Greg Abbot. During the event, the Texas Adjutant General – a politically appointed two-star Texas Air National Guard general – stood in unform and in full view of television cameras for the duration of Trump’s politically charged, partisan campaign speech. This prompted a probe of Major General Thomas Suelzer, member of the Texas State Guard (TXSG) as a potential violation of DOD Instruction 1344.10 for appearing in uniform at a partisan political event, giving the appearance of military endorsement of a political candidate for office. While the National Guard reviews the incideent, the Texas Military Department has a policy that clearly states “Members of the TXSG may not attend partisan political events in uniform or as an official representative of the TXSG.”

In a March 1^st Financial Times interview, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley said "I've fought for my freedom of speech. I've fought for the constitution… There's nothing technically illegal about speaking out ... But I think it's highly inappropriate for generals, retired or active, to opine on politics." Actually, generals speaking out and opining on politics can be illegal, if such comments are contemptuous, per the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) – there’s no technicalities about it. Milley’s statement captures an emerging problem plaguing the military since the Trump presidency: Retired generals and admirals – still very much associated with and representing the military voice in the eyes of the public – either don’t understand the legal boundaries governing their speech, or they know the laws and don’t care.

In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that military retirees can be court-martialed for crimes even in retirement. Few realize that UCMJ laws still apply to retired military officers, meaning that a retired officer could be theoretically charged for UCMJ Article 88: Contemptuous words toward officials. That’s why Dwight Eisenhower resigned his commission in July of 1952 after announcing his candidacy for the presidency.

Whether ignorance or indifference, the growing normalization of critical political speech by retired senior military officers is contributing to a disconcerting leakage of apolitical professionalism within the ranks. For instance, a U.S. Airman immolated himself in uniform in front of the Israeli embassy to protest the Gaza Conflict. Declining military norms around political forbearance is eroding the longstanding tradition of nonpartisanship. As the military becomes more politicized, it risks becoming another pawn in American politics. In fact, American confidence in the U.S. military is now at 60 percent, the lowest it’s been since 1997.

Senior military officers seemingly don’t understand legally allowed speech against a sitting president or other elected officials. Milley’s comment indicates his lack of understanding of the rules and is a microcosm of a systemic problem among retired flag officers engaging in political discourse. Left unchecked, the U.S. is on a dangerous trajectory of eroding civil-military norms. This downward spiral of military professionalism correlates with increased politicization and risks a sort of gray zone civil-military exploitation by politicians inclined to leverage military support for political gains, especially during contentious election cycles.

Aligning political messaging with perceived military support – or public decry by retired generals – influences public opinion. For the preponderance of his presidency, retired senior officers regularly and critically made public comments about Trump for unprofessional presidential behavior, especially when he suggested using military forces domestically. Despite UCMJ laws prohibiting contemptuous and treasonous language, there has been no recourse or public backlash for the recent chorus of general and flag officers expressing their discontent for former President Trump.

Prior to Trump, restraint defined normative approaches to use of military force domestically. Similarly, restraint defined retired flag officer speech – presumably because presidents generally restrained from bringing the military into domestic conversations. With Trump’s regular threats to deploy troops to the border or to use military force domestically against protestors, retired military officers regularly criticized an elected official, in contrast to perceived norms and in departure from actual laws. With historical norms shattered, American trust in the military as a neutral, nonpartisan actor is at risk. Correspondingly, creeping politicization erodes good order and discipline within the ranks.

In his 2012 presidential run, Mitt Romney spoke to an audience on the campus of the Citadel, and gave a partisan speech condemning then President Obama with cadets in uniform sitting in the background of the televised event. He also later gave a campaign speech at the Virginia Military Institute, again with uniformed cadets in the audience. Other presidential candidates, such as John McCain, also spoke at the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel as part of their political campaigns.

Do such events give the perception of military endorsement of a political candidate to the general public? Most likely. It’s not uncommon for politicians to seek out people in uniform as the backdrop for impassioned political speeches. While these cadets at public universities are not on active duty, their involvement makes politicians more likely to abuse civil-military relations to their benefit, much as Trump did with General Suelzer.

The America military needs a refresher; a reminder to return to the norm of nonpartisanship among the ranks – and the message starts at the top. The U.S. military risks continued gray zone exploitation for political gain. Similarly, sliding civil-military norms means this type of politicized behavior is normalized across the U.S. Armed Forces, where more service members feel the need to openly and publicly ‘voice’ their concerns about a crisis or politician.

American society should not want former military officers wading into politics and influencing public opinion. Thus, existing laws must be enforced, otherwise UCMJ Article 88 risks becoming another dead letter law in modern society. If rule of law and its credibility matter, retired military officers legally resign their commissions before entering partisan conversations through elected office, as political appointees, and/or as opiniated media commentators.

Allowing political exploitation of the military spells disaster for its professionalism. Without a purposeful intervention, Trump will likely seek out campaign events in red states with National Guard troops as the backdrop to generate the appearance of military support for his campaign. The military, including Guard and Reserve forces, must not allow further political exploitation.

Ryan Burke, Ph.D. is a professor of military and strategic studies at the U.S. Air Force Academy, codirector of Project 6633 at the Modern War Institute, affiliate professor at the University of Alaska’s Center for Arctic Security and Resilience, and research director for the Homeland Defense Institute at USAFA and USNORTHCOM. He is also a veteran U.S. Marine Corps officer.

Lt Col Jahara “FRANKY” Matisek, Ph.D. is a military professor at the U.S. Naval War College and a command pilot with over 3,700 flight hours in the C-17, E-11 BACN, T-6, and T-53. He was previously an associate professor of military and strategic studies at the U.S. Air Force Academy and has published over 100 articles on warfare, strategy, and military affairs in peer-reviewed journals and policy relevant outlets. 

“The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the United States Air Force Academy, United States Naval War College, Department of the Air Force, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or of any organization the authors are affiliated with.”