Hegseth pulls six Army officers from two-star promotion list in latest Pentagon shake-up

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth removed at least six Army officers from a two-star general promotion list, extending a months-long pattern of overriding military promotion boards that has drawn fire from lawmakers in both parties.

The removals, reported by The Hill on Tuesday, mark the latest in a series of interventions by Hegseth into the military's officer advancement process. A person familiar with the matter told the outlet that at least six names were struck from the list of Army officers slated for promotion to two-star general, the rank of major general. The New York Times separately reported the number at seven, with two of the targeted officers being Black and two being female.

The Pentagon did not name the officers or offer a specific reason for their removal. But chief spokesperson Sean Parnell pushed back hard on the coverage, calling the criticism a "worn out and manufactured" narrative and asserting that Hegseth holds clear statutory authority over promotion rosters.

Parnell says promotion lists are recommendations, not mandates

In a statement issued Wednesday, Parnell framed the removals as routine and well within the defense secretary's legal power:

"Promotion recommendations sent to the Secretary of War have always been recommendations, never mandates. It is widely understood across the building, including by the very reporter writing this story, that the Secretary has the final statutory authority to review and approve these rosters."

Parnell added that "all senior military leaders serve at the pleasure of the President and Secretary," and called the idea that promotion lists cannot be altered "ridiculous."

Federal law backs up the broad claim. U.S. Code Section 618 grants the commander in chief authority to remove officers' names from promotion lists before final approval. Hegseth himself told Congress in April that every officer serves at the "pleasure of the president, and when they need to be removed in order to ensure we have the right leadership in those services, I will make those calls."

The legal authority is not seriously in dispute. What is in dispute, and what neither Hegseth nor the Pentagon has publicly addressed, is why these particular officers were pulled, and whether the criteria applied had anything to do with merit.

A pattern that predates the two-star list

Tuesday's disclosure did not arrive in isolation. Hegseth had already blocked promotions of four Army officers to one-star rank just days earlier. Some of those officers had professional ties to Gen. Randy George, the former Army chief of staff whom Hegseth ousted in early April, and to Gen. Chris Donahue, who commanded U.S. Army Europe and Africa before retiring earlier this summer.

Earlier this year, Hegseth pulled four different Army officers, two women and two Black men, from a separate one-star promotion list. That move drew objections from then-Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and other top officials inside the building. Fox News reported that Driscoll initially refused to remove the officers before Hegseth intervened directly, and that none of the removed officers were under investigation or facing misconduct allegations.

The friction between Hegseth and Driscoll had been building for months. In February, Hegseth directed Driscoll to fire Army Col. Dave Butler, a senior public affairs official and strategic adviser to Army leadership with ties to former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley. Butler's name sat on a promotion list that had stalled for nearly four months, Newsmax reported, blocking roughly three dozen other officers from advancing. Butler ultimately chose to retire. Driscoll had reportedly resisted pressure to remove Butler for months, citing his role in Army modernization efforts.

That turf struggle reached its conclusion Monday, when Driscoll handed his resignation to the White House. He is departing the Trump administration after what S1 described as a months-long conflict with Hegseth over the direction of Army leadership.

Hegseth's reach has extended beyond the Army. He has also blocked promotions of officers in the Navy and Air Force, and by late July, Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, publicly criticized him for firing more than two dozen senior military officers and interfering with the promotion pipeline.

Collins warns against undermining military meritocracy

Collins did not hold back. In late July, she issued a pointed statement:

"The United States military is one of the greatest meritocracies in the free world. We need to make sure that it stays that way."

Collins's criticism carried weight because it came from a senior Republican, not a Democratic backbencher. It signaled that Hegseth's promotion interventions were generating concern on his own side of the aisle, not just from the usual opposition voices.

Not every Republican shared Collins's unease. Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told The Hill on Tuesday that he sided with Hegseth. "From what I understand, there was concern over them being political," McCormick said. "We serve at the goodwill of the president."

McCormick did not elaborate on what "being political" meant in this context, or which officers he was referring to. The Pentagon has not publicly identified any of the removed officers or detailed the basis for their removal beyond Parnell's general assertion of statutory authority.

NBC News reported Tuesday that several of the officers on the two-star list are logisticians, officers who manage supply chains, maintenance, fuel, food, and equipment. These are not political appointees or media-facing generals. They are the officers who keep the Army fed, fueled, and operational. Pulling them from a promotion track without explanation raises a straightforward question: if these officers survived a competitive, merit-based selection board, what disqualified them afterward?

Democrats demand an inspector general investigation

Two Senate Democrats moved to force an answer. On July 15, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Brian Schatz of Hawaii sent a three-page letter to the Pentagon inspector general demanding an independent investigation into Hegseth's promotion blocks. Their language was direct:

"Secretary Hegseth's alleged use of his personal views and perceptions on race and gender to interfere with the promotion process completely nullifies the extensive, competitive, rigorous and merit-based vetting process of candidates that the selection boards put forward."

The senators added: "It is clear his determinations are antithetical to the standards that should be assessed when considering promotions."

Whether the Pentagon inspector general has opened or declined that investigation remains unclear. The package does not resolve the question, and neither Hegseth's office nor the IG has publicly addressed the letter's status.

The White House has been reviewing at least some of Hegseth's promotion decisions. That review, focused on the earlier removal of four officers from a promotions list, suggests the administration itself has not treated these moves as routine, even if the Pentagon's public posture insists they are.

Hegseth has faced scrutiny from multiple directions during his tenure at the Pentagon. Earlier this year, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie accused him of violating the War Powers Resolution over military operations related to Iran, a charge that added to the political pressure surrounding his leadership.

Six officers removed, zero explanations given

The core problem with Hegseth's promotion interventions is not legal authority. The defense secretary has the statutory power to alter promotion lists. No serious observer disputes that. The problem is transparency.

Hegseth has now removed officers from promotion lists across the Army, Navy, and Air Force. He has ousted the Army's chief of staff. He has clashed with his own Army secretary badly enough that Driscoll resigned. He has fired more than two dozen senior military officers. And in none of these cases has the Pentagon offered the public, or Congress, a specific, substantive explanation for why individual officers were targeted.

Sean Parnell's statement that promotion lists are "recommendations, never mandates" is legally accurate. But it does not answer the question that Collins, Booker, Schatz, and a growing number of lawmakers are asking: what criteria replaced the selection board's judgment?

Tensions between Hegseth and other parts of the administration have surfaced repeatedly. A reported confrontation at Camp David over missile shortages earlier this year underscored the friction that has surrounded Hegseth's Pentagon leadership from the start.

The discrepancy between The Hill's count of six removed officers and The New York Times's count of seven remains unresolved. So does the identity of every officer affected. So does the question of whether any of the two-star removals overlap with officers previously blocked from one-star promotions, or whether these are entirely separate individuals caught in a separate sweep.

Meanwhile, Hegseth has also drawn attention for overruling field commanders on discipline matters while simultaneously pushing strict grooming standards, decisions that have fed a broader narrative of centralized control at the expense of military chain-of-command norms.

A defense secretary who insists on merit-based promotions owes the public more than a blanket assertion of authority. If these officers failed to meet the standard, say so. If the standard changed, explain how. Silence does not build confidence, it invites exactly the kind of speculation Parnell says he wants reporters to stop writing about.