Fmr. Navy Commander on Trump’s Purge of the Pentagon

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: And as we’ve just discussed, as well as the unprecedented purges of federal agencies, the Pentagon is still reeling from the recent firings of its top military leaders and lawyers, including Navy Admiral Lisa Franchetti and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C. Q. Brown. Theodore R. Johnson, a retired naval officer who served for two decades, says that this was, quote, “strictly a political move,” targeting those who support diversity and inclusion. And he speaks to Michel Martin now about the potential impact of these decisions.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Ted Johnson, thank you so much for talking with us once again.

CMDR. THEODORE R. JOHNSON, U.S. NAVY (RET.) AND SENIOR ADVISER, NEW AMERICA: Thanks for having me. Always good to be back.

MARTIN: You were a commander in the Navy. You were a White House fellow. You’ve written books, many articles, and so forth. But what many people may not know is that you were a speech writer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So, for people who don’t know what the Joint Chiefs of Staff do, what do the Joint Chiefs of Staff do? Why do they matter?

JOHNSON: The chairman is essentially the highest-ranking military officer in the country and is the president’s military adviser for all things related to the use of the military. The Joint Chiefs are made up of each of the top admirals or generals in the forces, the Air Force, the Navy, the Army, the Marines. And so — and we’ve added new forces. I think National Guard has a seat now, the Space Force. And so, these Joint Chiefs are responsible to man and equip the forces. They’re responsible for building ships, training sailors, soldiers, marines, et cetera. The chairman then advises the president on the employment of that force, operationally and administratively in terms of shaping.

MARTIN: So, they fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Charles Q. Brown Jr. He was a four-star general, a fighter pilot with more than four decades of service. He’s fired the first woman to lead the Navy as chief of naval operations. The first thing I wanted to ask is, as a person who’s been so close to those positions and actually served in the military for a long time, what was your reaction when you heard this?

JOHNSON: It’s unconventional to say the least. Chairman, Joint Chiefs, these folks are not political appointees in terms of they work for one party or another or aligned to one party or another. They swear an oath to the Constitution. They are used to serving across administrations, no matter the party, no matter the person. And so, it is expected that when a new president comes in, that president will make the senior advisers in the military in other places his own. That’s not the shocking part here. What’s shocking is the rate at which he’s firing folks, the number of folks he’s firing, and then the reasons that they’re being fired. It was said that the first woman to lead the Navy, the chief of Naval operations was essentially a gender-based hire. If you look at the folks that have let go, I think of the five three or four stars that have been let go in the last few weeks. One is a black man, Chairman Brown, and three are white women. And it makes you wonder when the Pentagon and the White House are pushing such heavy anti-DEI policies. It makes you wonder why the folks that are let go at the top of the military happen to be either people of color or women.

MARTIN: I don’t think it makes you wonder. I think they were pretty clear that’s why. I mean, one of the reasons that Pete Hegseth, who’s been appointed now as defense secretary, was selected by the president, was that he articulated this anti diversity, equity, and inclusion message. And he said that he wanted to return the military to a so-called warrior ethos. Question I’m asking you is, do they have a point? Were these DEI hires? And what difference does it make operationally into our — into readiness?

JOHNSON: They do not have a point. And look, General Brown was appointed by Trump to lead the Air Force before taking the role of chairman. If he was a DEI hire yesterday, last week, he was a DEI hire five years ago, 40 years ago in the military. So, what we’re seeing, the country is getting a crash course in how to politicize the military 101. Now, what Trump and Hegseth would suggest is that the politicization happened when all these DEI initiatives flooded the Pentagon and that’s the politicization? And what they’re trying to do to roll that back, and that is also incorrect. It is one thing for a force to make adjustments to its training, its reading materials, etcetera, to account for differences in our histories and in our — how we, you know, look and that sort of thing, it’s another thing to look at a career of four decades of service and say you are nothing but a DEI hire and the military has no use for you. So, you know, anti-DEI policy is one thing sort of just outright racial intolerance is another. There’s a distinction there. And I think what we’re mostly seeing is a president politicizing well qualified military officers in service of political and electoral agendas and not some rejection of — or not a blaming of DEI for putting unqualified people at the top of the military’s leadership.

MARTIN: He also dismissed the top lawyers called the JAGs for the Army, Navy and Air Force. What does it mean that he fired all these top lawyers?

JOHNSON: I think it is akin to what he’s done with the inspector general – – inspectors general at the different agencies. He’s getting rid of the oversight and many of the executive branch cabinets and now we’re seeing in the services. Top JAG officers are not legal advice to help the military stay out of trouble. They’re not legal advice to tell the president, here’s how you can break the law without getting caught. They are there to protect the service. They’re there to protect the country and the lives of those that they’re charged to defend, to protect. And so, their client is not the president. Their client are the sailors, airmen, marines, et cetera, and the services themselves. And what we’ve seen from Donald Trump, certainly since inauguration this year, is that if you are not working for him, then there is not much use for you, even if your job, such as the Justice Department, et cetera, is to protect the people. He wants people in those seats that are there to serve him, to carry out his orders. And even in spots, perhaps where they may be up for question.

MARTIN: When Pete Hegseth talks about restoring a warrior ethos to the military, I mean, obviously, you don’t speak for him. But what do you think he’s talking about?

JOHNSON: A few years ago, Senator Tom Cotton made a remark saying you know, these young men and women in America, they join the force because they want to kill the bad guys. And I will tell you, after 20 plus years of service, I met very, very, very few people who joined the military because they wanted to engage in violence. OK. That said, if you put on the uniform, you know that you can be, you may be exposed to violence. And people in uniform are willing to carry out their duties in that situation, but they don’t join to engage in violence. Most folks who join the military do so for economic stability, access to housing and education benefits, a fairly meritocratic promotion process, pay equity and equality is all there. So, they’re joining for the stability while also doing something that they can be proud of, their families can be proud of and serving the country. They do not join — and again, the vast majority of folks do not join to pull bullet in someone’s head or to blow up a city. So, if the warrior ethos, and this is what I fear, if it’s being mistaken for those who enjoy engaging in violence, the military doesn’t have a place for that. Certainly not a military is large and it’s precise as we can be with trying to attain our objectives. And instead, what we’re seeing is this sort of nostalgia for a carpet-bombing military that indiscriminately destroys enemies with no thought to collateral damage. And again, that’s not the military that we are today. It’s not who we’ve been for some time.

MARTIN: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also said that — reflecting the mass firings. He said this is a reflection of the president wanting the right people around him to execute the national security approach that we want to take. So, if that suggests that this is the normal course of business, the administration wanting to have it as its advisers, people who share the president’s vision for how they want to pursue national security. Is that right?

JOHNSON: Yes, president absolutely has that right. And every president should want generals, admirals in place that will execute the nation’s agenda. They’re not — and protect their interests. The question is on the one — on the word there, that’s — it’s a very basic one, but the right person, how they define right is not the way the military defines right. To them right is connected to — again, to loyalty. Right is connected to any — all avoidances of anything that could potentially be touched by something DEI or diversity related. And so, now, we’re not talking about qualifications. Now, we’re talking about what people believe about, you know, our history. We’re talking about people’s belief that diversity is a national and a military strength. We’re talking about people who believe the military should not be politicized. People who believe in the oath to the Constitution and not to the White House or to a president. Those are also the right people, but they’re persona non grata in this administration, in this Pentagon.

MARTIN: So, all of these roles, to this point, have been held by highly trained people with a lot of experience. And I wonder how deep the bench is. How easy is it going to be to replace these people?

JOHNSON: So, in terms of talent, qualifications, resumes, et cetera, the military is the most replaceable institution in the country. When you are promoted or when you retire, there is another person in your seat very, very quickly. There is no shortage of qualified people to do all of the jobs, the nation requires. Even if Trump and Hegseth were to let the top folks go in each place. So, the bench is deep, but I fear they’re not looking at the deep bench. They’re looking at the loyalty bench to see who might serve.

MARTIN: What happens to the people who were dismissed?

JOHNSON: It’s remains to be seen. You know, if you’re a four-star and you’re dismissed, you’re probably going home and you and we’ll enjoy retirement, whatever comes next. But it’s more difficult when you’re — say if you’re a colonel or captain, if you’re a one or two-star, because a dismissal doesn’t necessarily mean your career is over, even though your reputation may be stained. And even if it is over, you don’t get to go home the next day. And so, now you have to walk around in uniform, in a job that requires your rank, and stay in that position, either to fill out that tour of duty and then do another one or wait until you can be out processed. Nothing will be smooth from the point of firing forward, but it is not as abrupt as it is in the civilian world. So, there’s a couple of different paths, but most of them do not include upward mobility. Most of them include a holding pattern until you leave.

MARTIN: That seems like that would be a real hit to morale.

JOHNSON: Absolutely, because it’s — it is a testimony to unfairness to consider people for promotions or firing in this way. And so, never mind the morale of the three- or four-star that gets fired, their pension is going to make sure that they live comfortably for some time. But below them, you know, if I’m the next — if I wanted to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff one day and I’ve been in the military five years and I’ve seen Colin Powell do it and now I’ve seen Chairman — General Brown do it and I see General Brown got fired because he was called a DEI pick despite his record of superior performance. I see Colin Powell basically be kicked out of the Republican Party and told that he considers melanin and race more important than values because he chose to support Obama over McCain in 2008. Why would I stick around in a service that automatically assumes that my race is the most important thing to me, even more than my word to other people, my word to my family, my word to the country? It hurts morale up and down the chain and beyond the people who are immediately affected.

MARTIN: What about if you’re a Trump supporter? I mean, there are military supporters. I mean, I’m just — I am curious about what that looks like for them.

JOHNSON: It’s a wild time, but I will tell you I still have — I have friends that are Trump supporters. And these friends are really guys that I served in the military with — that we’ve stayed in touch via, you know, social media, that sort of things, and who are still serving. And I will tell you that they love the removal of DEI from the military from, you know, DEI programming and these sorts of things. They do not like the claim that diversity has made the force weak and the suggestion, the implication that folks of color or women who are serving are less capable or less qualified. So, you know, Trump supporter, that label, does not mean that they believe everything Trump and Hegseth have said about people that they have served with. There’s sort of a recognition reform is necessary, maybe some books shouldn’t be on the chairman’s reading list, you know. So, removal of that isn’t removal of — isn’t the same thing as removing all things diversity, recruitment, considerations of the diversity of force and leadership from the military. So, they’re able to hold the two together, but there are some — there are unhappy campers, even among Trump supporters in both the Pentagon and among us retired ranks.

MARTIN: You know, after the killing of George Floyd in 2020, the recently dismissed chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Charles Q. Brown Jr. spoke out in a video about his experiences as an African American pilot in the Air Force. Do you think that that is one of the reasons why he was fired?

JOHNSON: I do, though I think it was more of a messaging firing more — rather than one for performance or competence or even this was strictly a political move. There’s just no doubt about it. And it’s — again, this was a man that was appointed by Trump to lead the Air Force. And look, look at what happened to the previous chairman, General Milley from the Army. Trump appoints him chairman. He sort of swindled into walking across Lafayette Square when Trump stands in front of the church and holds the bible while Black Lives Matter protests are happening and Milley apologizes for that, saying, I shouldn’t have been there, that unnecessarily politicized both my office, the advice they give the president and the Pentagon, the military as a whole. And so, they — he’s retired now, but they have removed his clearance. They’ve removed the security detail. They removed his picture from the wall of former chairman in the Pentagon, and they’ve even threatened to take away a star. And when it comes to military retirement, that is something military members, active and retired guard very, very closely. And I think that — if it becomes a habit that they start messing with veterans’ benefits or military retirement, they may overplay their hand on this one.

MARTIN: What difference does it make that the force has been more diverse, that the top leadership has been more diverse than we’ve been used to seeing historically? Does it matter if the leadership is diverse?

JOHNSON: Absolutely. And it’s because the country is diverse and we have an all-volunteer force. And so, if you don’t care about diversity and you just want, you know, fit and eligible white men to populate the service. Good luck finding a million tomorrow who will volunteer at every level of service that can meet the force’s requirements. If you don’t have people at the top of the military who are leading a military that is extremely diverse, you will find yourself very soon with the military that can’t meet its recruiting goals because it feels unwelcoming to a large segment of people you must recruit from in order to meet the nation’s objectives. So, a diverse nation with a diverse military requires diverse leadership, period. And if you don’t want diverse leadership, you are signaling that you don’t want a diverse military, and you’re signaling that you would prefer service only come from one group of people. I don’t think that this is the Pentagon’s line here, but I’m suggesting that this is the kind of — this is the reason why diversity is not just the strength, but a necessity at every level of the military, from the first person out of boot camp to the most senior admiral in the military.

MARTIN: So, when do you think we might see the consequences of this, if your analysis is correct?

JOHNSON: Yes. So, I think it will be when recruiting — not the — not just the numbers not stacking up, but who is joining, changing. Right now, white men join at the highest rate of anyone in the country. Second, black women. I don’t know if in two or three years, under this kind of leadership, if black women will look to the military for the same financial, educational, housing benefits that the military offers, if they feel like they’re going to be unwelcomed, or if every promotion, every move they make, it’s because they’re the DEI choice, or the racial quota choice, or they’re put in the back office, or not even given the opportunity, because their race or gender alone means that doors are closed and that they can’t get through, and there’s no one on the other side who looks like them to help them navigate the system. So, we will see a lowering in recruitment and who gets recruited. The other thing the American people I think will take notice, and as much as we are loathed to disparage active duty service members, all the polls still suggest that the military is the most respected institution by the public, I think those numbers will also dip if the military’s leadership is deemed to be political and unfair and essentially practicing — you know, exercising people’s loyalty instead of their competencies and capability.

MARTIN: Ted Johnson, thanks so much for talking with us.

JOHNSON: Thank you. Thanks for having me.