Should retired generals and admirals be organizing into partisan groups to influence the election?

Not long ago, retired general officers from opposing ends of the ideological and political spectrum separately contacted me with invitations to join other retired general and flag (admiral) officers (GFOs) who are organizing themselves into partisan groups to influence the outcome of the election by collectively endorsing a candidate of a political party.  I declined and I encourage other GFOs to do so as well.

Although each of the groups claim to be nonpartisan, their rhetoric is plainly partisan as both of the GFO collectives attacked their opposite’s preferred candidate.  They clearly aim to exploit the respect their military rank affords them with the public in an effort to  give gravitas to their political endorsement.

I appreciate that retired GFOs want the best for our country, and that they have personal viewpoints about what that may be. In fact, there are plenty of ways they can productively employ their experience and expertise to continue serving the nation. 

However, creating combinations of GFOs to use their name and military rank in a bald effort to advance partisan political agendas is not one of them.

I firmly believe  these kinds of partisan activities by retired GFOs, even if well-intended, do a disservice to the armed forces and negatively impact our national security.  They suggest that a clique of retired GFOs is scheming to impose their will on America’s body politic.

To be clear, I am not talking about civilians (including former political appointees who describe themselves as national security experts), who organize themselves into partisan political entities to endorse favored candidates.

That’s what politicos do in a democracy.  Among other things, it establishes their partisan bona fides that can help them obtain a political appointment if their candidate wins.  And civilian political appointees—especially in the defense sector—are essential elements of the American concept of civilian control of the military.

But it is not what retired generals and admirals should do, and it is especially troubling when they form groups to advance a partisan agenda publicly.  In my view, no democracy is served well when senior military officers, even “retired” ones, organize themselves into partisan groups to influence elections.

I’ve said some of what you see below in previous posts, but I thought now would be a good time to consolidate a few ideas into a discussion for your consideration.

A politically neutral military 

Let’s begin by reminding ourselves that the U.S. military has a long tradition of political neutrality.  In Greer v. Spock, the Supreme Court explicitly approved a policy aimed at keeping the military “insulated from both the reality and the appearance of acting as a handmaiden for partisan political causes or candidates.”  It added:

“Such a policy is wholly consistent with the American constitutional tradition of a politically neutral military establishment under civilian control.  It is a policy that has been reflected in numerous laws and military regulations throughout our history.” (Emphasis added)

There is good reason for insisting upon political neutrality of the military—even to the point of infringing upon the First Amendment rights civilians enjoy.  In Parker v. Levy, a case wherein the Court found that the First Amendment applied differently to the military, the Court noted:

“This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society. We have also recognized that the military has, again by necessity, developed laws and traditions of its own during its long history. The differences between the military and civilian communities result from the fact that it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise’.” (Emphasis added).

This unique “primary business” has First Amendment implications.  For example, the Court points out that the military “is not a deliberative body. It is the executive arm. Its law is that of obedience.”

Further, the Court freely acknowledges that “the rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty.”  It also conceded that “there is simply not the same autonomy as there is in the larger civilian community.”

Historically, to maintain the fact and perception of a politiically-neutral military, retired GFOs have mostly (albeit not completely) observed the norm of not endorsing candidates or otherwise involving themselves in partisan political campaigns.

What is the legal status of retired officers?

Retired officers are part of the military.  A 2023 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report relates that the Supreme Court has “approvingly noted that [retired officers] remain part of the Armed Forces” and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  CRS goes on to say:

The U.S. Court of Military Appeals (now the CAAF) articulated a widely adopted position in 1958 in United States v. Hooper [26 C.M.R. 417 (C.M.A 1958)]:

[Those] on the retired list are not mere pensioners in any sense of the word. They form a vital segment of our national defense for their experience and mature judgment are relied upon heavily in times of emergency. The salaries they receive are not solely recompense for past services, but a means devised by Congress to assure their availability and preparedness in future contingencies. This preparedness depends as much upon their continued responsiveness to discipline as upon their continued state of physical health. Certainly, one who is authorized to wear the uniform of his country, to use the title of his grade, who is looked upon as a model of the military way of life, and who receives a salary to assure his availability, is a part of the land or naval forces. (Emphasis added.)

If the officers are retired, do their partisan activities matter?

Absolutely.  Civil-military relations researcher Michael Robinson observes:

Senior retired military officials can have a significant effect on how the public receives and interprets information on pressing issues.  Being out of uniform has little bearing on their influence, as their credibility as a speaker comes from their erstwhile career: Like princes of the church,” historian and civil-military scholar Richard Kohn remarks, “They represent the culture and the profession just as authoritatively as their counterparts on active duty.” (Emphasis added).

The damage to trust and confidence

In 2023, the Gallup Poll found that trust in the military, though still significant, fell to the “lowest in over two decades.”  In a 2024 report, Gallup shows that as recently as 2020, 72% of Americans had a “great deal/quite a lot” of confidence in the military. Today, that figure has declined to 61%.

Furthermore, in 2022, Gallup reported: “While the majority of Americans continue to believe military officers have high ethics (61%), the score is down 10 percentage points since it was last measured in 2017.”

What could explain all this?  In 2023, the Reagan Institute concluded that its polling reveals the reason “behind the decline in confidence [is] a growing politicization of military leaders.”

This decline in trust and confidence is not just a statistic; it threatens our national security.  Among other things, it’s a major factor in the ongoing recruiting difficulties that are dangerously eroding our military’s ability to “provide for the common defense.” The stakes are stark, as a recent report headlined, “The Army Doesn’t Have Enough Soldiers for Potential Wars with China and Russia.”

Let’s consider this: are the partisan activities of retired officers contributing to the problem? 

Civil-military relations scholars Risa Brooks, Michael Robinson, and Heidi Urben surveyed “retired general and flag officers, over half of whom were three and four stars.”  Though I can’t entirely agree with everything in it, the article they produced from the survey discussing their findings deserves a full read.

This part is especially relevant.

“Some respondents in our survey indicated that recent events required them to speak out publicly on political matters, suggesting a one-time deviation from norm adherence for them, while other respondents reflected a greater fluidity in their normative interpretations.

Regardless of their individual motivations, however, repeated norm violations in the aggregate combined with minimal social disapprobation in response to those violations move a norm from robust to contested and raise the possibility of further deterioration toward the norm becoming defunct.”  (Emphasis added)

What about veterans who run for office and/or endorse candidates as individuals?

Of course, I do not mean that veterans—including GFOs—should never engage in the political process.  Obviously, when a veteran chooses to run for office they will need to speak out on partisan political matters.  And running for office is a good thing: polls show that “Americans believe that Americans who have experience in the U.S. military make the best elected officials.”

This is different, however, from the issue of collective action by GFOs that ought to concern us.

How?  Those who choose to run for election subject themselves, their personal qualifications, and the rational for their positions to the kind of relentless scrutiny few GFO letter-signers undergo.  Moreover, they rarely use their rank, and their military experience is examined in excruciating detail.  That is not the case with retired GFO collectives whose members’ background and qualifications can often be opaque to the public.

Consequently, if GFOs feel compelled to endorse a political candidate (or attack one), they should do so not as names on a letter, but as individuals, so that they, their qualifications, and the rationale for their positions can be easily scrutinized by the media and the public.

Additionally, if they feel speaking out in a partisan way is imperative, GFOs can become fully civilian and remove this issue. 

They can sever their connection with the military by resigning their commissions.  While it would allow them to become fully politicized, they would have to cease using their military titles, and forgo their military retirement pay.  I’ve never seen any retired GFO do this, so there may be limits to their partisan ardor.

All of that said, veterans—including retired general and flag officers—can significantly contribute to the public dialogue, especially when they share their unique expertise on particular issues, and do so in a way mindful of the imperative to avoid partisanship.

In other words, I agree with those who say that while “partisan activism might be damaging, honest subject matter expertise can be constructive to our discourse.” Can it be done given that almost everything these days has some political dimension?  It isn’t easy, but I believe the answer is “yes.”  (As a potential example, consider this).

Concluding thoughts: 

In short, the public ought to be particularly wary of collective actions by partisan groups of retired senior officers who are trying to influence the election outcome.

Ask yourself: does it help democracies flourish when groups of generals and admirals from the most powerful military on the planet organize themselves for a partisan political purposes? Is this the example we want to show countries around the world?  Aren’t we trying to promote the ethic of nonpartisanship to militaries across the globe?  Of civilian control of the armed forces?

Moreover, while one may favor the candidate a group of GFOs is currently promoting, you have to wonder what partisan political activity will the GFO groups decide to pursue next?  What happens if their candidate falls short?  What is their agenda over the longer term?

It’s a short trip from seeking to collectively shake up the political landscape to creating a mudslide that has repercussions far beyond what were initially considered.

It saddens me that the retired GFOs endorsing candidates seem to believe that absent their intervention, the American people won’t – or can’t – make the right decisions at the polls.  Shouldn’t we have more faith in our fellow citizens and our democracy? 

At the same time the GFOs seem oblivious to the risks to the military as an institution they create when they engage in partisan collective actions.

Shouldn’t we be concerned about the erosion of the public’s trust and confidence in the armed forces attributable to a “growing politicization of military leaders”?  In a polarized nation isn’t it vitally important that the military not become perceived as yet another politicized entity?

Fortunately, the names of the vast majority of the 7,500 retired GFOs will not be found on letters endorsing candidates or otherwise engaging in partisan political activity.

In today’s hyperpartisan environment  the American people ought to be able to rely upon the military’s traditional nonpartisan ethic.  No citizen should be left to wonder how the military might react if one of GFO’s preferred candidates isn’t elected.

When U.S. military leaders band together as generals and admirals, it should be to accomplish the military mission, not to promote a political party’s candidate. With the election “too close to call” retired GFOs ought to be distancing themselves from partisan political rhetoric, and instead work to calm public’s election anxiety while at the same time encouraging everyone to vote.

And, that is true, no matter what side of the political aisle they stand on.

Remember what we like to say on Lawfire^®: gather the facts, examine the law, evaluate the arguments – and then decide for yourself!