Yes, Retired Generals Deserve a Voice Too
As Americans cast ballots for their 47th President, considerable discussion has emerged regarding the outburst in partisan rhetoric displayed by retired flag and general officers (FOGOs). Recently, former retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly delivered scathing criticism of his former boss. Labeling him a “fascist”, the former White House Chief of Staff cautioned Americans about ramifications of a second Trump administration and emphasized his alarming totalitarian disposition. His proactive commentary stands in stark contrast to the silent philosophy espoused by his counterparts like former Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey. To that end, like-minded officials desire the introduction of articles into the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would restrict officers from exercising partisan speech post-service. These examples reach certain extremes as one former Navy Captain proclaims that Congress should forbid retired FOGOs from running for office for three years and disallow four-star equivalent officials from publicly endorsing candidates, lest they lose their pension. The author and such proponents suggest that instituting bans would reinforce the public’s image of military non-partisanship and thereby reverse trends in eroding public trust in the U.S. military.
However, I argue that imposing such restrictions are harmful as the U.S. historically benefits from political input by its retired FOGOs. For example, political advocacy by respected FOGOs accelerates legislation offering relief to veterans and allies affected by war. In 2022, U.S. Army Maj. Gen Jeffrey E. Phillips and other retired FOGOs associated with the Reserve Organization of America doggedly fought in grassroot style for the passage of the PACT Act. The PACT act (H.R.3967) comprehensively addresses and extends VA benefits to veterans suffering from illnesses caused by toxic burn pits. Ex-FOGOs including (ret.) Admiral William McRaven and former Gen. Stanley McChrystal argued for special immigrant visas to be given towards displaced Afghani allies through the Afghan Adjustment Act introduced to the Senate in July 2023. These humanitarian agendas propagated by retired FOGOs enter a political arena, however, serve an honorable, civic purpose.
Moreover, a moratorium on political participation for retired FOGOs opposes the model of public service as set by our Founding Fathers. In the same year that he resigned his commission, General George Washington vigorously lead political discussions on the weak precursor to the U.S. Constitution and campaigned to revise the Articles of the Confederation. Retired Major General Alexander Hamilton immersed himself in the 1800 Presidential Election going so far as to launch political diatribes against Aaron Burr while airing grievances about President John Adams to the Federalists. His arrangement of support for Thomas Jefferson captures the conventional nature of post-military political participation in American past. In fact, among the 45 presidents in U.S. history, over 31 have served in the military with 12 having retired as FOGOs. An Orwellian ban on political speech for retired FOGOs dangerously extends the possibility of political disenfranchisement for any retired senior executive in government involved in national security. Abiding a precedent of nonpartisanship for SES-level intelligence professionals and diplomats would dismiss opportunities in knowledge transfusion between policymaking and operational planning.
If officials truly seek a cleansing of partisan identities in the Department of Defense, then such planners would purge programs that leave a greater impression of partisanship. For example, the U.S. military sends hundreds of its most senior strategists and active-duty FOGOs to the Reagan National Defense Forum hosted in Simi Valley, CA by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. One may argue that such an arrangement appears mildly ironic in the superficiality of political associations. Moreover, the Department of Defense would need to scrutinize the reputational downsides of staffing military legislative assistants with numerous politicians (ex. Republic Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas) who have voted to contest the 2020 election or voted against the creation of a commission to investigate the January 6th insurrection. Stationing military officers under such politicians may be perceived as an endorsement or demonstration of indifference towards individuals who have actively undermined the American electoral process.
Lastly, reports of diminished public confidence towards the military as a result of political statements by retired FOGOs are empirically mixed at best. In fact, a U.S. Army War College publication found that despite the 500 times increase in political endorsements by retired FOGOs over the period of 1998 to 2016, public confidence in the military grew by 15%.
All the more, a Texas National Security Review article by prominent researchers in Civil-Military Relations discovered that only 9 percent of retired FOGOs spoke at a rally and that over 76% would actually be uncomfortable with doing so. On balance, to enter or not to enter political discourse remains a dividing issue among prominent retired flag officers. However, former senior military leaders shed valuable insight into political figures shaped by their experienced careers in American decision-making. In other words, the retired generals deserve a voice too.
LTJG Andrew Song is a U.S. Navy Nuclear Submarine Officer and a graduate of Yale University. His previous publications include peer-reviewed journals and outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, The National Interest, Military Review, Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, USNI Proceedings, and the Center for International Maritime Security.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent the U.S. Navy or Department of Defense.