GOP lawmakers caught off-guard and demand answers after Hegseth’s surprise 20% cuts to military leader roles

Republican lawmakers have said they were taken by aback by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s 20 percent reduction in the number of generals and admirals, according to a new report. Several prominent GOP senators told The Hill that Hegseth provided little advance notice and few specifics about the decision, including which positions would be eliminated and how the Pentagon determined where to make cuts.“I wouldn’t have made that a priority if I had been asked,” Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the outlet.Hegseth announced the reductions during a State of the Force address last week, describing it as a “long overdue” step toward greater accountability. “You can’t change a culture with the same people who enabled it,” he told troops gathered in Quantico, Virginia.The reduction is part of a broader overhaul of the Pentagon’s senior ranks under Hegseth. He has removed several prominent military leaders and intervened in promotion decisions. These actions have raised bipartisan concerns that seasoned officers — including women and people of color — are being sidelined for ideological reasons.Pete Hegseth unveiled 20% cuts to military leader roles during a State of the Force address last week, describing it as a ‘long overdue’ step toward greater accountability (AP)Wicker said he had received sparse details about the reduction, though he suggested Hegseth could be targeting unnecessary layers in the military bureaucracy. “I didn’t get a long lead,” he told The Hill.Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, another Armed Services Committee member, likewise said lawmakers had not been adequately briefed before Hegseth made the announcement.“What I want to see is a plan,” Ernst said. “I’m not going to say a 20 percent reduction is not warranted. The problem is that the secretary did not come and explain this to us before acting on it.”“Are these positions that need to be modernized or collapsed? I want to know that, what’s the reason is behind it?” she added. “We should look at both military and nonmilitary people, but I do have concerns.”Maine Senator Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, said that Hegseth’s move struck her as ideologically driven.“I think that we should adhere to a system that has served us well,” she said. “There may be a need to reduce the overall number of flag officers at the Pentagon, but this approach seems to be targeted on ideology.”“It also disturbs me that there’s a disproportionate number of Blacks and females who are not being promoted,” Collins said. Maine’s Republican Senator Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, added that Hegseth’s move struck her as ideologically driven (AP)Earlier this year, Hegseth reportedly blocked the promotion of several women and Black military officers in a pushback against what he has called “woke” policies.“It is untrue that Secretary Hegseth is basing promotion decisions on race and sex, and we have said so repeatedly,” a Pentagon official told The Independent. During his speech, Hegseth said the military will remain “colorblind, gender-neutral and merit-based.”But some lawmakers said elements of his address last week reinforced their concerns, including his declaration: “No fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals — just warriors, just tough, ready committed troops.”Republican criticism has extended beyond the recent reduction in the military’s top brass. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis said the controversy fit a broader pattern of Hegseth making consequential decisions without sufficiently consulting Congress.“Too much time has passed, and he’s failed to respect Congress,” Tillis, who is retiring next year, told The Hill. “He’s never really given us fulsome briefings.”“When you’re the head of the Department of Defense or any agency, you at least engage your committees,” Tillis added. “When you hear Sen. Wicker and other people express frustration — we’re his stakeholders. We control his purse strings.”