U.S. civil-military tensions could raise long-term issues

Stable civil-military relations have been a hallmark of U.S. military power. But the

country’s armed forces have recently been drawn into divisive political issues. The prospect of further strained relations may pose a distraction for the Pentagon,

affecting military morale.

In May 2021, a class of 995 cadets graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York, which has produced two presidents and 76 Medal of Honor recipients. © Getty Images

In a nutshell Stable civilian relations are a pillar of the U.S. military

Recent political debates have raised tensions

Morale, performance and funding could suffer

2/6/25, 2:47 PM Will U.S. civilian-military relations worsen? – GIS Reports

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-civilian-military-relations/ 1/6

Stable civil-military relations have long been a hallmark of American military power.

Recently, however, the armed forces have been swept up in divisive partisan political issues in a manner not seen in the United States for decades. The prospects for

strained relations among civilians and military could spill over, hampering readiness and operational practices in the near term.

For now, this challenge seems more a possibility than a reality. Nevertheless, the

issue of civil-military relations will unquestionably attract more media attention and political scrutiny. The potential for these disputes to serve as a distraction for the

Pentagon and hinder morale and performance should not be discounted. 

Past as prologue The U.S. military was established with the premise that civilian military leaders

should always have the ultimate authority over the activities of the armed forces, and

that both enlisted and military personnel are bound by oath to their allegiance to the U.S. constitution. This relationship has endured over the history of the republic,

though not always without friction. Civil-military tensions erupted periodically over the course of the American Revolution, not only between senior commanders and the

Continental Congress but also among the ranks, most notably during the Newburgh Conspiracy of 1783.

Nor did the establishment of the U.S. Constitution (1787) mitigate future

confrontations. In modern times, a touchstone for the debate was Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military

Relations” (1957). Huntington warned against drifting from a traditional model

where military leaders and civilian leaders operated in distinctly different spheres, with the armed forces focusing strictly on military affairs. Another important work

was “The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait” by Morris Janowitz (1960), which argued that the professional military had devolved into technical

“military managers,” as opposed to ethically driven, selfless, warrior-servants.

The greatest period of tension occurred in the wake of the Vietnam War (1973) and

protests against the military draft (mandatory conscription). Officers were accused of being self-serving careerists, while respect for the U.S. military dropped to historic

lows. A military reform movement briefly flirted with unionizing the armed forces. Much of the criticism implicitly drew on the influence of Huntington and Janowitz.

„ Recent strains reflect the more challenging conditions of the

post-Vietnam era.

2/6/25, 2:47 PM Will U.S. civilian-military relations worsen? – GIS Reports

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-civilian-military-relations/ 2/6

In the 1980s, tensions greatly reduced and respect for the armed forces dramatically

improved. Despite occasional flare-ups, such as President Bill Clinton’s confrontation with senior military leaders on gay people serving in uniform, confidence in the

armed forces and relations between civilian and military leaders has seen little concerted attention.

As with many aspects of his administration, President Donald Trump elicited some

controversies, such as with the role played by military personnel during the June 2020 demonstrations outside the White House at Lafayette Square in Washington,

D.C. Such partisan disputes and controversies, however, accompany virtually every president at one time or another. The present issue, however, is if more sustained and

systemic tensions are emerging – reflecting the more challenging and debilitating

conditions of the post-Vietnam era.

Controversies in the ranks One issue that has persistently dogged the military for decades is sexual abuse and

violence. This has tracked the expansion of women in the ranks of the armed forces (currently 14.4 percent in the active forces and 17.9 percent in the reserve forces),

and the increasing number of married personnel in the services (56.4 percent in the active forces and 48.2 percent in the reserve forces).

A resulting tension is an ongoing Congressional effort to change how the U.S. military

prosecutes criminal sexual abuse cases. Proponents argue that greater safeguards are needed to protect soldiers and families, while contend that changes to the

military justice system will undermine order and discipline and command authority.

Both sides say the issue exacerbates concerns that the officer corps is becoming risk- averse, and less effective in ensuring the welfare of military members and their

families.

Another subject which has troubled civil-military leaders is military service by transgender individuals. Policies have whipsawed back and forth: both the Obama

and Biden administrations considered transgender service an important equality issue, while the Trump administration viewed the incompatibility of transgender

service as a physical and mental health and operational readiness issue. In the debate, military leaders were caught in the middle of what is a public, highly divisive subject,

even if only a few thousand transgender persons serve in the active and reserve forces (0.7 percent of the military).

2/6/25, 2:47 PM Will U.S. civilian-military relations worsen? – GIS Reports

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-civilian-military-relations/ 3/6

Debates over civil-military relations were accentuated by media reports claiming that Army General Mark

A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had feared that former President Donald Trump was considering a “coup” to remain in office. © Getty Images

Another concern that has received significant attention lately is the presence of violent political extremists in the military ranks. This issue came to prominence after

the riot at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, when protestors disrupted the Congressional confirmation of the presidential election results. According to a

May 22 report by the Washington Post, “[a]t least five service members face federal

charges for allegedly participating: an active-duty Marine Corps officer who was arrested last week, two part-time soldiers in the Army Reserve and two in the

National Guard.”

In response, the White House directed that the Pentagon be included in a national effort to combat domestic extremism, to include monitoring service members for

extremist activities. Critics argue these initiatives smack of political repression rather than a genuine concern over public safety. U.S. media outlet Defense One reported of

one effort by two federal legislators, fielding complaints that revealed “training sessions and regulations that service members argue paint the military as

fundamentally racist and support left-leaning groups while labeling conservative movements as extremist.”

2/6/25, 2:47 PM Will U.S. civilian-military relations worsen? – GIS Reports

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-civilian-military-relations/ 4/6

Similarly, senior U.S. military commanders and officials have been mired in

controversy over “anti-racism” training. One hallmark of this dispute was a recent Congressional hearing where senators grilled the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of

Staff over the use of critical race theory in diversity training in the armed forces. In another case, the senior officer in the U.S. Navy was criticized for including the

scholar Ibram X. Kendi’s “How to Be An Antiracist” in a professional reading list for naval officers. Similar controversies have erupted over the teaching of anti-racist

doctrines at the military service academies. Critics contend that rather than combating racism, the teachings stigmatize individuals by race and undermine equal

rights protections.

A recent study released by one group of Congressional leaders argues that the

political controversies are distracting and undermining the readiness of the armed forces. Published in July 2021, “A Report on the Fighting Culture of the United

States Navy Surface Fleet” concluded, “[t]here was a broad consensus across interviewees on numerous cultural and structural issues that impact the morale and

readiness of the Navy’s surface force. These include: an insufficient focus on warfighting skills, the perception of a zero-defect mentality accompanied by a culture

of micromanagement, and over-sensitivity and responsiveness to modern media culture.”

The momentum of these issues has revived debates over whether civilian leaders are being overly intrusive in injecting political issues into military culture, operations and

practices. Others ask if military leaders are intentionally or inadvertently engaged in supporting partisan political activities to the detriment of good order and discipline

in the services. The debate was accentuated by media reports about a recently released book by the Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, “I Alone Can

Fix It,” which includes a claim that the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff feared that former President Trump considered organizing a military coup to remain in

office. The reporting exacerbated acrimony on all sides of the political spectrum over the appropriate behavior from military and political leaders. 

There is no question that the hyper-political debates in the public sphere have spilled over into U.S. military affairs. The issue is whether these political disputes will have a

debilitating impact on recruiting, retention, readiness and operational performance in the future.

„ There are no signs that acrimonious partisan disputes in the

U.S. will abate.

2/6/25, 2:47 PM Will U.S. civilian-military relations worsen? – GIS Reports

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-civilian-military-relations/ 5/6

Scenarios A significant factor that could exacerbate the current controversies is reduced

funding for the armed forces, which could impact  training and readiness. That, in turn, could affect retention in the services.

In addition, as the U.S. economy recovers from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic,

the military will have to compete more vigorously with the private sector to enlist new soldiers. If the military is funded through either continuing appropriations or at

levels proposed by the president’s budget, real spending will decline.

That would inevitably hurt morale, recruiting, retention and readiness, and intensify

concerns over the distractions of strained civil-military relations. Further, there are no signs that acrimonious partisan political disputes in the U.S. will abate. Indeed, it is

far more likely that they will intensify and increasingly intrude into military matters. If these conditions persist for a few years, then the most likely scenario is that both

the capabilities and the confidence in the military will decline.

© 2025 Copyright by Geopolitical Intelligence Services AG

View this report on the web: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-civilian-military-relations/

Report published: August 13, 2021

Document version/created:

February 6, 2025

2/6/25, 2:47 PM Will U.S. civilian-military relations worsen? – GIS Reports

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-civilian-military-relations/ 6/6

ANOTHER “CRISIS” IN CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS?

ANDREW RADIN AND THOMAS SZAYNA JULY 8, 2021 COMMENTARY

What should be the role of Defense Department civilians below the secretary of

defense in policymaking? During James Mattis’s tenure as the secretary of

defense, senior civilians reported that they felt bypassed in the decision-making

process and that their responsibilities were taken over by senior military officers.

In November 2018, a Foreign Policy article quoted one former official that civilian

control of the military “was already weakening in the last administration, and I

think it basically fell off a cliff.” A congressionally mandated commission and

commentary by former Defense Department officials echoed these concerns.

2/6/25, 2:48 PM Another “Crisis” in Civil-Military Relations? – War on the Rocks

https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/another-crisis-in-civil-military-relations/ 1/12

BECOME A MEMBER

To what extent are these reported changes really a problem and what to do about

them? We assess that the reports of the military’s behavior in dealing with top

civilians are — arguably — compatible with current regulations, and largely on

par with past policy processes. Civilian control over military actions, at least as

legislated by Congress, does not appear at risk. Nevertheless, declining civilian

input is a concern for good policymaking. Changes in legislation or regulation

may be needed to bolster civilian input, although before such steps are taken, the

defense community needs to understand better the evolution of defense civilian

input into policy processes since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act.

How Is It Supposed to Work?

By civilian control of the military, we mean that a specified, politically

accountable civilian authority has the final say on national security and defense

policy. Civil-military relations refers to the wider set of interactions between

civilians and military personnel. Relevant academic literature highlights four

issues in civil-military relations: 1) curbing the political power of the military; 2)

ensuring that the military acts to protect rather than endanger the state; 3)

ensuring civilians do not use the military for partisan political goals; and, 4)

solving the puzzle of how civilians can control the military and ensure military

effectiveness even as they lack the specific knowledge and expertise of military

officers. The current debate centers on the fourth issue: Amidst the understanding

that civilians and military have a shared responsibility for the security of the

country, the tension centers on interpreting rules and procedures in a way that is

respectful of civilian and military roles and achieves military effectiveness while

preserving civilian control.

2/6/25, 2:48 PM Another “Crisis” in Civil-Military Relations? – War on the Rocks

https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/another-crisis-in-civil-military-relations/ 2/12

As a component of the U.S. government, the Department of Defense is authorized

and constrained by law. Personnel within the department draw on law and

regulation, or at least their understanding of it, to determine their roles and

responsibilities. While the academic literature is useful in evaluating performance

and proposing remedies, we use the legal and regulatory framework as a baseline,

especially on the narrow question of civilian control. The degree to which

observed behavior is within or outside the legal and regulatory framework

highlights where changes may be needed.

The basic structure and functioning of the department is specified by Department

of Defense Directive 5100.01, Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major

Components, issued by the secretary of defense and based on the last major defense

reform legislation, the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reform Act of

1986. The directive describes the components of the department. The Office of the

Secretary of Defense, led by the deputy secretary of defense, acts as the “principal

staff element of the Secretary of Defense.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff is led by the

chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and supported by the Joint Staff. The

military services are responsible for recruiting, training, and equipping military

forces. The combatant commands are regional and functional commands who

exercise “authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations, joint

training, and logistics.”

Some of the structure and functions of the department are specified in

Goldwater-Nichols, although the legislation leaves flexibility, such as by

empowering the secretary of defense to define the chairman’s role, as is done in

the directive on functions. The current version of the directive dates back to 2010

and was issued by Robert Gates, but the basic organization articulated in the

directive has not changed greatly since 1987.

As specified in Goldwater-Nichols, the directive on functions delineates that the

operational chain of command goes from the president to the secretary of defense

to the combatant commands. The secretary therefore exercises civilian control

2/6/25, 2:48 PM Another “Crisis” in Civil-Military Relations? – War on the Rocks

https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/another-crisis-in-civil-military-relations/ 3/12

over the military in the sense of being the only civilian other than the president

with the authority to issue orders to military personnel. The directive stipulates

that all communication between president or the secretary of defense and the

combatant commands, including military orders, is normally required to be

transmitted through the chairman. Indeed, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff is responsible for overseeing the activities of the combatant commands, and

acting as their spokesperson, “especially on the operational requirements.”

Furthermore, the directive states that communication between other

organizations and the combatant commands “normally shall be coordinated with”

the chairman.

Another statutory role for the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to provide their advice to

both the president and the secretary of defense, first as members of the Joint

Chiefs of Staffs and second as representatives of their respective services. While

recent commentary calls out the military commanders for “often preempt[ing] the

advice and analysis of civilian staff by sending their proposals straight to the

secretary of defense,” the functions directive effectively permits the chairman to

bypass civilians in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in providing military

advice. In principle, these civilians could also present their advice to the secretary

without inputs from the chairman, although standard procedures generally

require that they at least attempt to coordinate with the Joint Staff.

To look deeper at the issue of the alleged declining role of the civilians within the

Office of the Secretary of Defense, we focus in particular on the role of the Office

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (hereafter referred to as “Policy”).

Other civilian organizations in the department are no less important, but may

have different dynamics. Policy has specified responsibilities and functions, such

as issuing guidance and reviewing campaign plans and contingency plans as well

as representing the department in interagency meetings and international

defense negotiations. But direct oversight of the management of the use of force,

setting requirements, and developing plans is executed by the military chain of

command.

2/6/25, 2:48 PM Another “Crisis” in Civil-Military Relations? – War on the Rocks

https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/another-crisis-in-civil-military-relations/ 4/12