Pentagon Sidelines JAG Lawyers as New Deployments and Operations Loom

The Pentagon is undergoing a sharp and controversial shift in how it handles legal counsel—especially military Judge Advocates General (JAGs)—just as the Department of Defense moves forward with expanded deployments and operations. Recent actions by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are raising serious alarm among military legal experts and veterans alike.

What’s happening: JAGs squeezed out of the decision loop

• Top uniformed legal leaders removed or demoted. Hegseth has pushed out or marginalized senior JAG officers across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. Many of these were the principal legal advisors to combatant commands or service leadership. Critics inside the Pentagon say some of the dismissals came after those officers raised legal concerns about policies.

• The legal advice function is shifting. Instead of relying on the established JAG corps, Hegseth is increasingly turning to civilian Pentagon lawyers, political appointees, and external legal figures to shape policy and operations.

• Rank compression. In some services, the highest uniformed JAG positions have been lowered in rank (from three-star to two-star), a change that may limit those officers’ influence in senior deliberations and reduce their visibility in top decision-making forums.

• Political litmus tests in JAG hiring. Interviews for new JAG positions have reportedly included questions about hot-button issues—such as views on vaccine mandates or transgender service members. Some current JAGs say this discourages dissenting legal opinions.

• Legal advice sidelined in novel missions. A growing number of military operations now appear to be proceeding with limited or post facto legal review. These include domestic National Guard deployments to U.S. cities, and increasingly aggressive strikes against alleged cartel targets outside U.S. territory. Some legal experts believe JAG input is being overridden by opinions from the Justice Department or Office of Legal Counsel.

Why veterans should care

Veterans—especially those who’ve served under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, rules of engagement constraints, or observed the JAG system in operation—should pay close attention to these changes, because:

1. Erosion of legal guardrails. The JAG corps has long served as a check: offering advice that ensures lawful orders, protecting service members from illegal commands, and preserving the integrity of military operations. Weakening that function could expose troops and veterans alike to greater legal and operational risk.

2. Command responsibility intensifies. With less formal JAG involvement, commanders may be asked to make decisions in gray zones without rigorous legal backing—or face blame later if actions exceed lawful bounds.

3. Precedent for veterans’ issues. JAGs' marginalization today could presage changes in how the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs approach legal matters affecting veterans—disability appeals, military justice residuals, or operational accountability.

4. Cultural and institutional shift. The move signals a broader redefinition of how the military sees compliance, oversight, and the balance between mission and legality. For veterans steeped in tradition and code, this may feel like a turning point.

Legal experts sound alarms

Prominent voices in military law are openly concerned:

• James Baker, a former judge on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, has warned that the administration may be ignoring JAG advice by having DOJ or OLC override it.

• Rear Admiral (ret.) James McPherson, a former Navy JAG, cautioned that when legal advice is bypassed, a commander can be left exposed. He advised that in such “no-win” situations, legal officers must document dissent and warn commanders of downstream accountability.

Together, they underscore a doctrine veterans are familiar with: when legal safeguards disappear, the burden of decision, and the shadow of consequence, grow heavier on the uniformed decision-maker.

A parallel fight: press access and transparency

This JAG sidelining is part of a broader clamp-down by Hegseth’s Pentagon. A new press policy demands that credentialed reporters acknowledge that even requesting unapproved unclassified material could constitute “encouraging illegal behavior.” Major media outlets—among them The New York Times, CNN, Reuters, and The Washington Post—refuse to sign it, framing it as an attack on freedom of the press.

With both the legal and media functions being restructured, the administration appears to be consolidating control over the narrative and legal boundaries of military operations.

Where this could head—and what veterans should watch

• Operational expansion without legal pushback. The administration may escalate deployments or strikes with less internal legal resistance.

• Post-action legal vulnerability. Without robust JAG involvement, future accountability—either through Congress, courts, or internal review—may become more contentious.

• Veterans’ legal collateral damage. Decisions made today in gray zones may generate downstream obligations for veterans who served under these new paradigms.

• Potential legislative or judicial backlash. Congress, oversight committees, or courts may intervene if they see constitutional or legal overreach.

Veterans have seen this before: when the tension between mission urgency and legal constraint intensifies, the burden often falls on those in harm’s way. For those who’ve walked the corridors of command, or relied on JAGs in the field, the unfolding changes inside the Pentagon represent more than politics. They reflect a fundamental rebalancing of power—one with real-world consequences for today’s troops and tomorrow’s veterans.

Read the full article here.