The Washington Post reported Tuesday that during the final months of the Trump administration, Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had actively engaged Chinese officials in an attempt to “avert armed conflict.” Milley reportedly also asked senior U.S. officers to involve him should President Donald Trump issue an order to launch nuclear weapons at an adversary.
If true, these revelations represent a significant breach in civil-military relations at the highest level, and cap a period of tremendous turmoil and friction between the Pentagon and the White House. Here are three things that you need to know about the latest crisis.
1. Milley is not in the chain of command
As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Milley is an adviser — and adviser only — to the president. While the Goldwater-Nichols Act states that he is the senior-most ranking military official in the U.S. Armed Forces, and responsible for communicating the president’s intent to other senior military commanders, the chairman is not responsible for executing policy or military strategy. This includes, according to publicly available Air Force doctrine, the launch of nuclear weapons.
There was no legal way to stop Trump from ordering a nuclear strike if he wanted to, expert says
This matters for two reasons. First, Bob Woodward’s reporting suggests that Milley attempted to have senior military officials double-check with him should Trump give an order to launch nuclear weapons out of the blue. However, this is an authority that Milley, by public law and open-source doctrine, does not have.
Second, Milley’s reported calls with his Chinese counterpart would appear to usurp civilian decision-making authority. Attacks against foreign adversaries are routed from the president to the secretary of defense to combatant commanders. Had Trump wanted to launch a preemptive attack, whether conventional or nuclear, Milley could have advised against the attack but lacked the legal authority to stop him.
2. Public opinion about these reports will reflect partisan identity
The American public has been tolerant of the increasing powers afforded to the president in foreign policy, though this is tempered by attitudes during war. Indeed, surveys over the past 30 years suggest that the public is more than willing to both accept military advice as gospel and is supportive of the military circumventing civilian authority. When asked in 1999 about whether during wartime, “civilian government leaders should let the military take over running the war,” a full 65 percent of the public agreed.
What 9/11 taught us about the president, Congress and who makes war and peace
This low level of public acceptance of civil-military norms is closely tied to an individual’s approval of the president and partisan identity. According to one survey conducted in 2019, Americans who disapproved of Trump were 60 to 80 percent more likely to believe that civilian leaders should defer to military judgment about the use of force. By contrast, a 2013 survey revealed that Republicans were three times as likely to support deference to the military when Obama was in power.
The evidence suggests that public attitudes about civilian control are conditional based on which party is in power. Public response to Milley’s alleged actions will probably reflect these partisan gaps. Those who disapproved of Trump’s actions, particularly after the Jan. 6 insurrection, will be most supportive of Milley’s reported actions, while those who supported Trump will be most critical.
3. There will be long-term consequences for civil-military relations
Despite public disagreement about whether Milley’s alleged actions were appropriate, the reporting on these events will have long-term effects on civil-military relations in three ways.
First, it decreases trust between the president and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the nation’s elected leader, the president must be able to enact his agenda, and do so without concern that he is being actively undermined by subordinate military leaders. For good strategic assessment, the president must be confident that the chairman’s military advice is impartial, honest and comprehensive.
Indeed, concerns about military agendas have led to significant dysfunction in decision-making processes in the recent past, and experts have long identified trust as a critical component of the civil-military relationship. Milley’s alleged actions would probably damage not only his relationship with the president but also the relationships between future chairmen and presidents.
Second, it sets a potentially dangerous precedent for future military leaders. Already, Milley’s alleged actions are being compared to those of Defense Secretary James Schlesinger during the Nixon administration. Schlesinger famously told senior military leaders to check with either him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger if Nixon, who was regularly inebriated during the final days of his presidency, ordered a nuclear launch.
Don’t miss any of TMC’s smart analysis! Sign up for our newsletter.
While placing safeguards against nuclear holocaust in the event a president with compromised mental capacity were to order a strike may seem reasonable, experts agree that the solution lies in more civilian, not military, oversight. Further, in today’s negative and polarized political environment, Milley’s alleged actions reinforce concerns that military leaders may ignore the president’s ultimate authority over nuclear weapons at their own discretion.
Finally, Milley’s reported actions will probably further politicize a military that is already under significant stress. Despite a professed commitment to being apolitical, military leaders already increasingly identify with a political party, openly express partisan sentiments on social media and adhere less frequently to established norms.
Political leaders have also increasingly used the military to further their partisan political agendas, breaking civil-military norms. Milley found himself at the center of partisan controversy during congressional hearings on the defense budget in which the subject of critical race theory was raised. New allegations that Milley sought to undermine presidential authority, coupled with partisan beliefs about civilian control, will probably only accelerate the politicization of the armed forces, which can be damaging to democratic health.
Overall, Milley’s reported actions appear to be those of a military leader who was deeply concerned about the possibility of major power war in the final days of the administration. But the alleged steps he took to ensure peace were both outside of his authority and undermined civil-military norms in the process. The consequences of these actions could be long-lasting.
Editor’s note: The article has been updated to reflect the correct name of Nixon’s secretary of defense: James Schlesinger. We regret the error.
Professors: Check out TMC’s expanding list of classroom topic guides
Carrie A. Lee (@CarrieALee1) is chair of the department of national security and strategy at the U.S. Army War College. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the official views of the Army War College, U.S. Army or Department of Defense.