When Donald Trump is sworn in again as commander-in-chief on Monday, some of the generals and admirals he will command may be wondering whether his first order to them will be "You're fired."

While potential wars brewing with China over Taiwan and the South China Sea figure prominently in Congress and the General Staff's plans, Trump and his team say they intend to keep top military leaders loyal to the president's agenda — and the president's I - a close observer of the military leadership and organization - are disturbed.

"One of the most important norms in U.S. civil-military relations is that the military responds to elected leadership, regardless of anyone's political affiliation," said Corey Schake, senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Subjecting generals to a political litmus test "will convey to the American public that The message: Their military leadership is political, and it will erode trust in the military. It will hurt recruiting and retention, and it will fundamentally change the American public's perception of their military leadership. I think that's a bad one. idea. I hope President Trump doesn’t adopt it," Shirk added.

Yet that's exactly what Trump has vowed to do. The questions are when, how and to whom.

The Foundation for Accountability, a conservative activist group led by a former Republican Senate staffer, last month began circulating a list of 20 colonels, generals and admirals who have expressed support for diversity and inclusion initiatives in the military. Adm. Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Staff and Chief of Naval Operations, is the highest-ranking officer on the list. Many of those on the list are intelligence chiefs or commanders in Europe or Asia.

A Wall Street Journal report widely cited by military observers said the incoming administration would create a "Warrior Council" of retired military commanders friendly to Trump's agenda to vet and purge officers who support anti-racism initiatives.

The question came up squarely during the confirmation hearings of Pete Hegseth, Trump's embattled defense secretary nominee. U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, the Democrat who represents Rhode Island and is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, described a "purge panel" that the incoming administration is considering.

Reed asked Hegseth to explain why officers who uphold anti-discrimination laws and policies enacted by Democratic and Republican administrations should be punished for it. Reed cited emails in which Hegseth advocated firing "any general who provided support for the transformation of the military driven by Obama and Biden's extra-constitutional agenda. Clean house and start over."

Hegseth responded that no general was responsible for the failure of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and that accountability was necessary.

"The military was a brave pioneer of racial integration," Hegseth said, referring to post-World War II racial integration orders. "DeI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies today are different than they were then. They divide forces within formations, causing commanders to walk on thin ice."

Hegseth sidestepped a question about whether a "warrior committee" of retired senior officers would be convened to review the records of combatant commanders, service chiefs and others, suggesting that every senior officer would be scrutinized.

Peter Feifer, a professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy and director of Duke University's U.S. Grand Strategy Program, said: "These comments sometimes come from candidate Trump, but usually from people around Trump, and they are indeed quite exaggerated and exaggerated. "Extreme." "If you go on to read what they write or what they say on TV interviews, you might come to the conclusion that there's going to be bloodshed equivalent to the Stalinist purges of the 1930s."

Feaver said the administration could check the anti-DEI box by firing several senior officials as a political victory and move forward. "It makes other people take notice and say, if we did this to this person, we can do this to you," he said. "It's going to be politicized unless there's a practical reason because they're underperforming or breaking some rules in some tangible way. If it's just symbolic, it's going to be politicized, but that's relatively minor, And it’s actually within the bounds of precedent to a certain extent.”

Shortly after winning the election, Reuters reported that the transition team was making plans to fire senior officials. Howard Lutnick, CEO of Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald and chairman of his transition team and Trump's pick for commerce secretary, said days before the election that Trump Elevate "Democrat" officials to authority.

"He made a mistake. He thought they were generals. They were democracy generals," Lutnick said, describing Trump's former defense secretary Jim Mattis, former chief of staff Mark Kelly and other generals in senior leadership roles as traitors.

Reuters reported that one of the new administration's priorities will be to clear out generals with ties to retired Gen. Mark Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces under Trump. Milley has been sharply critical of Trump, calling him "the most dangerous man in America" ​​and a "complete fascist."

Joe Biden issued a preemptive pardon to Milley on Monday, almost as he stepped out of the White House door for the final time as president, to protect him in case Trump tried to prosecute him.

Katherine Kuzminski, associate director for research and director of the Military, Veterans and Society Program at the Center for a New American Security, said Trump’s authority to fire a general — any general — is unquestionable. She said generals used to get fired all the time. The question is why.

"It's not fair to say that the generals need to be held accountable," she said. "The concern...if we are to be clear on the fact that a uniformed leader who does not act in a partisan manner cannot get their job unless they are aligned with the president they serve: this is a huge problem for the arms profession. The ability to self-regulate raises a lot of questions.”

Appointing a general or admiral to a key position, such as commander of the Pacific Fleet or Marine Corps, or to run one of the military's 11 combatant commands, has long been a complex process that requires months of preparation and internal debate. . These positions have the rank O-9 or O-10 in military terminology; lieutenant general or general, lieutenant general or admiral. Kuzminski said any officer at the O-4 level or higher — a lieutenant commander in the Navy or Coast Guard or a major in other services — is confirmed by the Senate and serves at the pleasure of the president.

Officers in the ranks of O-9 and O-10 - Vice Admiral and Vice Admiral and above - retain the higher rank by virtue of being assigned a rank with that rank. She said the officials were prepared for such roles over decades of careers in Republican and Democratic administrations.

"The president can choose not to accept proposed promotions or appointees, or he can fire people who are currently serving," Kuzminski said. "What he can't do himself is say, 'I'm going to put my people there, right? 'It also needs to go through the promotion process within the service, so if he were to replace a combat commander or a sergeant, the whole process starts over again to determine who the next candidate is and who fits within the service. Qualifications and competitiveness.”

In 2023, Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville exercised the rare privilege of blocking more than 400 senior military leaders (about half of the military’s top general and admiral positions). The promotion was part of an ultimately failed strategy to push back against the Pentagon's new rule that military personnel can be reimbursed for travel expenses when they must travel abroad for abortions or other reproductive care.

Key positions are held by acting leaders but without the authority to initiate policy changes. About a year ago, when Tuberville was finally relieved of year-long terms, about 500 officers were inducted at once. Feaver said the military is still digging holes.

"A pretty well-established leadership management personnel system designed to create the smooth flow and level of predictability that a family needs... Tuberville flips that on its head," Feifer said. "It's going to take a few years to get back to normal and for everything to eventually go back to the way it was before. But of course, if that normalcy is interrupted by large-scale indiscriminate firing, then you're just magnifying the damage, exacerbating the damage and prolonging the damage."

However, these reservations had an unintended side effect: They gave purge conservatives evidence that the military could handle the absence of one or two generals.

"They said we could - we should - lay off 500 people," Feaver said. "That number is close to the number that Senator Tuberville set aside. So, they're saying, 'Yes, we can remove that many people and it won't hurt the country.' "That's nonsense, of course. But it's nonsense that they have to say in order to minimize the damage caused by Senator Tuberville."