Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed or blocked the promotions of over 80 generals and admirals, affecting approximately 10 percent of the U.S. military's senior officers, according to current and former military officials. The recent actions include seven Army officers who had been selected for promotion to two-star general rank by a board of senior Army leaders. These personnel changes come amid ongoing military challenges, including the protracted conflict with Iran and the need to address vulnerabilities exposed by advances in drone and missile technology.

The personnel moves have sparked internal division within the Pentagon and drawn criticism from Congress. Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll resigned recently, reportedly after expressing frustration with Hegseth’s dismissal of some of the Army’s most experienced leaders. In a meeting with President Trump, Driscoll raised concerns that the firings jeopardize Army modernization efforts and have negatively impacted morale among service members. Some military personnel now question the fairness and apolitical nature traditionally associated with the promotions system, senior officials said.

Senior administration voices reportedly urged Driscoll to remain in his position due to concerns about a leadership void, but he proceeded with his resignation. Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, expressed disappointment at Driscoll’s departure and indicated that questions would be raised upon Congress’s return. Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, labeled the removals by Hegseth as “illegal,” highlighting the unprecedented nature of the actions compared to historical precedent, where senior officers were typically removed only for moral or ethical transgressions.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell defended the removals as a routine prerogative exercised by every defense secretary. However, military officials have stressed that the officers dismissed or denied promotion adhered to Pentagon policy, suggesting other motivations behind the actions. According to several officials, the purge appears aimed at reshaping the military’s senior leadership to reflect Hegseth’s political and ideological preferences rather than job performance.

The changes have disproportionately affected minority and female officers. Over half of those removed are Black or female, groups that already face underrepresentation in the senior ranks dominated by white male officers. Among the seven Army officers denied two-star promotions recently, two are Black and two are female. Analysts note that this trend will likely reinforce a senior military leadership demographic that is even more white and male in the coming years. This year marks the lowest percentage of women nominated for general and admiral ranks in at least a quarter-century, with no women poised for admiral nominations for the first time in over a decade.

Hegseth has publicly defended his approach as a necessary “cleansing” of what he described as “social justice, politically correct and toxic ideological garbage” within the department, emphasizing the need to “remove the distractions” to allow stronger leadership. Critics, including senior military officers and members of Congress, warn that the purge risks hollowing out military leadership amid ongoing strategic challenges, including confronting sophisticated threats from Iran, Russia, and China. The Army is currently engaged in heavy operational demands, including defending U.S. forces in the Middle East from missile threats and supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, while striving to modernize its capabilities to meet evolving global threats.

Meanwhile, attempts to install new leadership face hurdles. Hegseth’s nominee for Army chief of staff, Gen. Christopher LaNeve, reportedly lacks sufficient Senate support for confirmation. The repeated dismissals of high-ranking officers viewed as potential successors to previous commanders have exacerbated concerns about instability at the top of the Army. These developments have led to continued scrutiny from lawmakers and military insiders about the possible long-term impacts of the defense secretary’s personnel strategy.