Those who study civilian-military relations talk frequently about the unequal dialogue between America’s civilian and uniformed leaders. Civilian leaders sit atop the chain of command and have the final word on defense policy and strategy matters. In return, they have the responsibility to respect—in the sense of listen closely to, not defer to—the military advice of those in uniform. Without this respect, the dialogue ceases to be a conversation and becomes a series of partisan orders.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s short-notice, no-explanation summoning of more than 800 general and flag officers from command positions around the world demonstrates a lack of respect for their time and their jobs. It suggests a concomitant lack of respect for their advice. 

Perhaps this was unintentional, in which case Secretary Hegseth could apologize and cancel the meeting. Short of that, he could take the opportunity at Quantico to acknowledge and underscore the respect due to general and flag officers. 

First, he should vow to respect the non-partisan nature of military service. General and flag officers have taken an oath to the support and defend the U.S. Constitution from their earliest days in uniform, and reaffirmed that oath with each subsequent promotion. Hegseth should cease and disavow any initiative to separate these officers from their oath, especially by inserting hints of partisanship into key actions such as promotions or intelligence reporting, 

Second, the secretary should acknowledge the professionalism of general and flag officers, who have spent years acquiring expertise and assuming increased responsibility for recruiting, organizing, training, equipping, and employing the American military, in peace and war. They know their subordinates need to be ready to fight today and tomorrow, and do not need to be reminded of this fundamental responsibility. 

Third, as a corollary, if senior civilians feel obligated to fire general and flag officers, they need to state the reason for the firing. The secretary has removed nearly a dozen general and flag officers over the past nine months without explanation. Many of those fired have been women or people of color. Absent an explanation, it seems these flag offers were fired for who they are rather than how they did their job. Such targeted actions will undermine trust between senior civilians and flag officers, and send a chilling message to these groups about whether or not leadership sees any value in their service.

Finally, senior civilian leaders should show respect for general and flag officers as people. They are busy people doing critical work; their time should be appropriately respected and their efforts disrupted only when necessary. This is, or should be, basic to a leader of a large organization. 

But what if the short-notice summons was intentionally disrespectful, an odd attempt to display dominance? This would indicate that the unequal dialogue has already begun to shift toward the partisan—and a fundamental change in civilian-military relations in the United States.

How might such a shift manifest itself? You might see senior officers putting in for early retirement, thus removing themselves from any dialogue; choosing to keep quiet amid confused and confusing actions by civilian leaders; preemptively complying with implied, but not issued, orders; aggressively implementing the secretary’s agenda to demonstrate fealty to him; and publicly embracing partisanship for reasons ranging from strong personal support for the administration to hopes for further advancement. 

Should such actions continue, they might add up to profound culture change in the general and flag officer corps—one shaped by partisanship rather than the Constitution. That would be catastrophic for the civilian-military dialogue, the military itself, and the country.

]]>

As the Trump administration pushes to “aggressively adopt AI” in the military, there’s a recognition that some of the models may have protections or limitations that aren’t applicable in a military context. To be sure, some of these will need modification to suit the military’s mission. But there are many reasons that the military will want to have guardrails built in, for its own protection.

Policymakers and AI labs should collaborate on how to adapt guardrails specifically for military uses. Some existing guardrails, like discouraging users from killing people, are inapplicable to military use where mission lethality is essential. But removing all guardrails without contextually appropriate replacements could have severe consequences. This is why the Trump administration's decision to move responsibility for AI under the R&D umbrella makes sense. It will allow for “going fast” to work out the kinks, while not “breaking things” in ongoing military operations.

Some of the protections that need developing could focus on preventing external malicious actors from misusing AI, while others should focus on preventing authorized users from creating harm from within.

As the former deputy assistant defense secretary for cyber policy, I've seen how aggressively external malicious cyber actors are trying to get into DOD and other systems. PRC cyber campaigns such as Volt Typhoon have found success in so-called “living off the land” techniques, wielding the stolen credentials of legitimate users for nefarious purposes. Using those techniques, malign actors could target AI systems already deployed inside the Department, but also the companies that are training and tailoring those systems, with the aim of altering their output. 

It’s not just the malicious hackers who pose a danger in using these AI systems. In an organization as large as the military, the risk from human flaws, enabled by AI systems, become even greater. 

Insider threats are nothing new to the military. But with growing concern over chatbots’ abilities to manipulate their users and—even unintentionally—lead them down “AI psychosis“ mental-health crises, these threats could grow in number or severity. 

Imagine a disgruntled service member asking AI to develop plan to evade security protocols and sell classified data or leaders’ emails. While it took Edward Snowden years to develop deep knowledge of NSA systems, AI tools trained on network architectures and military systems could help even novices identify loopholes. Or imagine someone requesting help with ransomware campaigns—something Anthropic recently detected Claude was manipulated into doing—but operating from military infrastructure. Appropriate guardrails could help trip alarms when someone is doing something the military would want to prevent or prosecute.

But what if the signs of AI misuse are immune from network forensics—and live entirely inside a user’s head? Imagine a service member who stands watch over the nation’s nuclear weapons, and who—via interactions with both personal and professional LLM tools—has stumbled into believing the world may in fact be a digital simulation. 

Detecting mental-health risks from AI use is already a challenge in civilian contexts; guardrails for military contexts will be harder and of often of greater consequence. When should an AI system alert a user’s chain of command of a concerning line of inquiry? 

There’s a distinction between the technical risk and vulnerability that exists in AI systems and the human behaviors and queries that need guidance and limitation. One could address the technical risks from outsiders by ensuring that AI systems are built and deployed in ways that take cybersecurity into account at the beginning instead of waiting for compromise and then patching. 

Defining and determining “what right looks like” in responsible military use of AI systems will be a nuanced undertaking. Guardrails must match the wide variation of missions within the military from business systems to command and control. Often, the answers may not even be technical ones, but instead policy or behavioral. 

To address these challenges, the Department should work with AI companies to develop models that can detect threats in real time—not just malicious queries, but patterns suggesting psychological manipulation or insider risk. We need to start discussing what kinds of queries or activities should be blocked, redirected (like OpenAI's “safe completions“), or requiring immediate command notification. This is why the Trump administration’s decision to move responsibility for AI to the research-and-engineering parts of the military is a prudent one.

Developing such protections, values, and policies, consistent with the military’s values, should not be seen as hitting the brakes on AI adoption, but to keep it on track for success. The AI era has the opportunity to get off on the right foot, combining speed of deployment with safety and transparency of use.

Mieke Eoyang is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy, and a former professional staff member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. She is a non-resident senior fellow at the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology. The views expressed are those of the author. 

]]>