Former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall has issued a stark warning regarding the role of senior military leaders in responding to policy decisions under the administration of former President Donald Trump. Drawing from his experience and recent observations, Kendall criticized what he described as a troubling norm of denial among military leadership when confronted with controversial orders or actions originating from the White House.
At a recent military retirement ceremony, where Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke, Kendall observed a pervasive reluctance among senior officers to acknowledge the aberrations occurring during Trump’s presidency. This attitude, he asserts, amounts to a tacit acceptance of orders without moral or legal challenge, which he believes threatens the constitutional integrity of the Armed Forces and, by extension, American democracy.
Kendall highlighted a distinction recently emphasized by Gen. Caine in a National Defense University speech, where the general explained that military leaders have a professional obligation to assess what they can do operationally, but not to advise whether they should do it—claiming the latter is strictly a civilian policy matter. Kendall calls this bifurcation an oversimplification and a dangerous abdication of responsibility, especially given actions taken under the Trump administration.
He cited specific instances that, in his view, merit military opposition or at least serious ethical scrutiny, including extrajudicial killings of alleged drug traffickers at sea, the targeted killing of a foreign head of state along with family members, the unlawful apprehension of another nation’s leader, and initiating a war without Congressional authorization. Additionally, Kendall pointed to the deployment of National Guard troops in Democratic-led cities without local consent as a concerning precedent.
According to Kendall, many lower-ranking officers privately express alarm but remain hesitant to push back due to fears of career repercussions, including demotion, forced retirement, or removal from promotion lists by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He argued that this climate ultimately undermines the military’s oath to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” emphasizing that this oath obliges leaders to evaluate not only capability but also the legitimacy and legality of orders.
Kendall also recalled the abrupt removal of Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. from the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs early in Trump’s second term, suggesting the move was part of a broader effort by Trump and Hegseth to replace senior military legal advisers with loyalists who would validate the president’s directives, regardless of legal or ethical concerns. He contrasted Brown’s stature and independence unfavorably with that of his successor, Gen. Caine.
Looking ahead, Kendall pointed to potential future challenges, including possible military involvement in U.S. midterm elections. While Gen. Caine has denied current plans for such deployments, Trump has avoided ruling out the use of troops. Kendall concluded that no distinction between operational feasibility and policy, nor legal counsel provided by loyalist lawyers, can absolve senior military leaders of their constitutional duties or their accountability to the American people and history.