The Pentagon has initiated a significant review concerning General Mark Milley, the recently retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has revoked Milley’s security protections and clearance, and mandated the inspector general to assess his actions during his tenure. This review will examine whether a demotion of Milley is warranted, as outlined by Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot.
The inquiry aims to ascertain the context surrounding Milley’s conduct, particularly his prior dealings with former President Donald Trump. Although Milley’s relationship with Trump started on solid ground, it deteriorated considerably over time. Milley opposed Trump’s suggestion to deploy military forces to control protests following George Floyd’s death and was involved in controversy when he communicated with his Chinese equivalent in 2021, which Trump labeled as treasonous. Despite Trump’s outcry, Milley maintained that the communications were standard operational procedures.
In his farewell remarks, Milley emphasized the commitment to the Constitution, distancing himself from the notion of loyalty to any individual, a statement that didn’t sit well with Trump. Trump’s administration had initially provided Milley security details following heightened threats from Iran after the 2020 military strike that killed Iranian General Qassim Soleimani.
Current assessments indicate that threats against Milley remain, which calls into question the revocation of his protections. Hegseth’s chief of staff highlighted that accountability within the military ranks is pivotal and deemed that undermining the chain of command poses risks to national security.
Additionally, this move mirrors previous actions where Trump rescinded security clearances for other officials from his first term, such as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt commented that individuals such as Milley and Bolton do not warrant taxpayer-funded protections, given their financial capabilities for private security.
In tandem with the security changes, Milley’s portraits were removed from their displays at the Pentagon, signaling a definitive break from his legacy as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The future of these portraits, which were funded through donations rather than taxpayer dollars, remains undecided.
In a broader sense, these developments reflect ongoing tensions within military and political hierarchies and the challenges faced when personal beliefs intersect with public service. The implications of this review will have significant ramifications not only for Milley’s career but also for military protocol and relations within the Pentagon.
This situation illustrates the complexities of leadership and accountability, as well as the ongoing scrutiny military officials face in politically charged environments. It serves as a reminder of the critical balance between individual opinions and adherence to institutional commitments.