Hegseth Cracks Down Again: Cutting 20% of Active-Duty Generals, Centralizing Authority at the Operational Level
U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s successor, Mark H. Hegseth, is once again reshaping the military establishment—this time targeting a significant reduction in the number of active-duty generals.
According to multiple U.S. media outlets citing informed sources, Hegseth plans to reduce the current force of general officers by approximately 20%, retaining only 80% of the existing ranks. While the Pentagon had previously proposed a 10% reduction, Hegseth has abruptly doubled that figure, citing excessive bureaucratic redundancy among senior officers as a key impediment to combat effectiveness.
In his rationale, Hegseth argues that the military does not require such a high concentration of generals. Reducing the number of one- to four-star officers would enable greater operational authority to be delegated to frontline units, thereby enhancing overall combat readiness and responsiveness.
In practice, since assuming office, Hegseth has already removed over two dozen senior officers, including General Randy George, the former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army—the highest-ranking officer in the service.
Additionally, Hegseth’s approach to gender diversity within the military has drawn scrutiny. He has publicly characterized female service members and officers as a factor undermining unit cohesion and decision-making efficiency. Under his leadership, two female four-star generals have been dismissed, along with a substantial number of other female officers.
On matters of personal appearance, Hegseth has enforced strict standards. Military personnel are prohibited from growing facial hair except under exceptional circumstances, and body composition is subject to close monitoring. Even low testosterone levels in male service members have reportedly triggered disciplinary action, based on an implicit assumption that such physiological conditions indicate diminished “masculine vigor.”
On the surface, some of these reforms appear grounded in practical concerns about organizational efficiency. However, the scale and pace of the purge raise questions about whether political or ideological motivations may be influencing personnel decisions.
These developments gain further context given Hegseth’s vocal support for military action against Iran and recent speculation about his potential candidacy in the next U.S. presidential election. His aggressive restructuring of the military leadership thus appears increasingly aligned with broader strategic and political objectives.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1877741331183628/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.