The Cascade of Loyalty

An organization’s culture does not emerge from the bottom up; it cascades from the top down. The values, behaviors, and mindset of senior leadership create a powerful ripple effect that shapes the actions and decisions of every individual within the hierarchy. This concept is especially notable in hierarchical organizations. When the top of the organization undergoes a seismic shift, the tremors are felt at every level.

In 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense has become a stark case study in this principle. The unprecedented removal of at least 17 senior uniformed officials is more than a leadership shuffle; it is a deliberate architectural change designed to reshape the very foundation of the American military. But it goes much further. Let’s review the now well-documented facts.

The Ticker: 2025 Senior Uniformed Departures

The following table tracks the publicly reported departures of senior uniformed officials from the Department of Defense in 2025.

Deep Dive: First, You Get Rid of the Lawyers

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” — W. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2

Four hundred years ago, Shakespeare penned what is often mistaken for an anti-lawyer joke. In reality, it was a warning. The line is spoken by a villain plotting to overthrow the government, who understands that the first and most critical step to establishing tyranny is to eliminate the guardians of law and order. This centuries-old insight provides a chilling context for the events of 2025. We may argue the word tyranny today but the actions are clear.

To understand the current civil-military crisis, one must first understand the critical role of legal counsel within the armed forces. As former Naval War College professor Tom Nichols explains in The Atlantic, the first step in turning a military into a personal tool of power is not to fire the generals, but to fire the lawyers. The systematic removal of the Judge Advocates General—the senior legal officers for each service branch—is the most alarming and consequential of the recent departures. These are not just any attorneys; they are the ultimate arbiters of the legality of orders, the institutional conscience that ensures the military operates under the rule of law, not the whims of a commander in chief or politically appointed leadership.

“If you’re a military officer, the people that you’re gonna want an opinion from are lawyers—which is the next step, which is you not only get rid of the lawyers at the Justice Department; you do what Trump’s already done: You get rid of the top lawyers of the Pentagon.” — Tom Nichols, speaking on The Atlantic podcast

By removing these key legal figures, the administration has effectively broken the military’s internal system for checking unlawful orders. An officer’s duty is to obey lawful orders, and they are trained to begin with the presumption that an order is legal as it passes down the chain of command. This presumption, however, is built on the understanding that legal experts have vetted the order at the highest levels. With the top lawyers gone and replaced by acting officials who have witnessed their predecessors’ fates, that presumption of legality is shattered. The message to the remaining and replacement legal staff is clear: loyalty is valued over legal scrutiny. This creates a chilling effect, where raising objections becomes a career-ending move, and the path of least resistance is to find a legal justification for any order, no matter how questionable. As the saying goes, “you can indict a ham sandwich.” But we’re talking about the most serious consequences of geo-politics.

A Commander’s Counsel:
Why JAGs Matter on the Front Lines

It is easy to dismiss the removal of military lawyers as a bureaucratic shuffle, but for those of us who have served in command, this strikes at the very heart of operational integrity. My own experience taught me that a commander’s most crucial decisions are made at the intersection of mission accomplishment and legal authority.

We relied on our JAGs for far more than just military justice. They were our on-the-spot experts for interpreting the complex laws of international warfare, crafting and understanding Rules of Engagement (ROE). Only with the benefit of their expert training are commanders able to correctly make split-second determinations on hostile intent, hot pursuit, and the legal nuances in the transitions between peacetime operations, the enforcement of UN sanctions and combat operations. These are not academic exercises. A commander’s decision to engage a target or cross a maritime boundary carries immense strategic and legal weight. JAGs are embedded throughout the joint force providing essential counsel that ensures these actions are lawful, defensible, and aligned with U.S. and international law.

A Parallel Purge: The Department of Justice

The removal of legal guardrails has not been confined to the Pentagon. A parallel and equally significant purge has been underway at the Department of Justice (DoJ), an institution designed to be the independent arbiter of law in the United States. Since January 2025, the DoJ has seen a systematic removal of experienced career officials, particularly within its National Security, Criminal, and Civil Rights divisions. As reported by The Washington Post and Reuters, more than a dozen lawyers who worked on criminal cases against the president were fired in the first week of the new administration. By May, according to NPR, an estimated 70% of the attorneys in the vital Civil Rights Division had departed.

This pattern mirrors the one seen at the DoD. It is not a random reorganization but a targeted removal of institutional knowledge and legal expertise. By replacing career officials with loyalists, the administration weakens the department’s ability to provide impartial legal counsel and enforce the law without political bias. When viewed alongside the firings of the military’s Judge Advocates General, a broader strategy emerges: the simultaneous dismantling of the two most critical legal pillars meant to ensure that executive power remains bound by the Constitution.

From the Hill: Slotkin’s “Purge” Warning

You may have missed a powerful summation by the junior Senator from Michigan during a recent Senate Armed Services hearing. On June 18, 2025, during a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Budget, Senator Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, emerged as a leading voice of concern on Capitol Hill. She forcefully questioned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about the stability and integrity of the chain of command, directly accusing the administration of conducting a political “purge” of military leaders who show insufficient loyalty.

“This is a purge. It is a purge of people who have given their lives to this country, who have worn the uniform, and who have been trained since they were 18 years old to be apolitical. And you are systematically trying to remove them.”
(Paraphrased from multiple reports of Sen. Slotkin’s statements)

Senator Slotkin’s questioning has highlighted the administration’s focus on personal loyalty over professional competence and has drawn public attention to the unusual nature of the departures. Her statement that the firings “should send a shiver” down the spines of Americans underscores the gravity of the situation, framing it not as a partisan issue, but as a fundamental threat to the non-political nature of the U.S. military.

The Expertise Gap: When the Expert Fallacy Meets National Security

An underlying theme of the current administration is the belief that successful business leaders can effectively run any part of the government. As detailed by Forbes, the 2025 cabinet is the wealthiest in American history, with a record number of billionaires appointed to key positions, including several with direct influence over national security.

This raises a critical question of organizational leadership: does genius in one domain translate to all others? The assumption that a successful private equity manager like Stephen Feinberg can seamlessly transition to the number two position at the Pentagon, or that a tech entrepreneur like Elon Musk can overhaul government efficiency, is a high-stakes experiment. National security is not a business. It is a complex ecosystem of geopolitics, military strategy, and institutional culture that cannot be mastered on a balance sheet.

We have tried many others in the shoes of senior leadership: Former Congressmen, Former Defense Executives, Former Generals, Former Corporate Executives and Former CEOs. None have had an easy go of it. The danger lies in the “expert fallacy”—the belief that success in one field confers expertise in all. By prioritizing business acumen over deep-seated institutional knowledge, the administration risks creating a dangerous expertise gap at the highest levels of our national security apparatus, where the consequences of inexperience are measured not in market share, but in lives and global stability.

The evolution of Joint Doctrine has come with difficult lesson learned over decades since 1947. The 1986 Goldwater Nichols Act was a major, and necessary, revision to joint warfighting readiness.  In recent years the most challenging national security decisions were led by a National Security Advisor overseeing a National Security Decision Making Apparatus. It assured good and bad ideas received a fair hearing and served us reasonably well. Today, nothing like it exists.

The Hollowed-Out Watchdog: The IRS

While the administration appoints a record number of billionaires to its cabinet, it has simultaneously moved to dismantle the primary agency responsible for ensuring they pay their taxes. In early 2025, the IRS was thrown into chaos after the unprecedented firing of nearly 7,000 employees. As the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reported, many of these were experienced auditors recruited specifically to handle the complex returns of high-net-worth individuals and large corporations.

This was not a simple budget cut; it was a targeted removal of institutional capacity. According to senior agents who spoke with ICIJ, the firings have forced the agency to prematurely close active audits of wealthy taxpayers, potentially leaving millions in public revenue uncollected. As the Brookings Institution noted, “A starving IRS is a feast for wealthy tax evaders.” The administration has since proposed cutting the IRS budget by over 50% by 2027, further gutting its enforcement capabilities, a move analyzed by the Tax Law Center.

The impact will be that those paying taxes will be those with the simplest returns; those with one or two incomes and few deductions. AI can flag those electronic returns in seconds.

This creates the ultimate conflict of interest: the very individuals whose complex finances require the most scrutiny are part of an administration that is systematically weakening the watchdog. It is another, quieter front in the war on institutional guardrails, with profound consequences for the principle of equal accountability under the law.

From Regulator to Shareholder:
The Blurring of Lines

Beyond the removal of personnel, a more fundamental transformation is underway: the U.S. government is shifting its role from regulator to shareholder. In a stark departure from traditional free-market principles, the administration has begun taking direct equity stakes in major public companies, effectively blurring the lines between public oversight and private enterprise. This has created a new and complex landscape of potential conflicts of interest, particularly when the companies involved are also major political donors.

As reported by Yahoo Finance, the government has acquired significant ownership in at least five major corporations as of October 2025, including a 10% stake in semiconductor giant Intel, a 15% stake in rare earth producer MP Materials, and a powerful “golden share” in US Steel that gives the president veto power over key business decisions. This move toward state ownership has been framed as a national security imperative to secure domestic supply chains. However, it raises profound questions about governance and accountability.

This new reality is compounded by an unprecedented level of corporate financial support for the administration. While the government considers taking an equity stake in Lockheed Martin, the defense giant is simultaneously a major donor to the $300 million White House ballroom project. CNBC News quoted a company spokesperson who said Lockheed is “grateful for the opportunity to help bring the President’s vision to reality.” Lockheed Martin is not alone; the donor list includes other tech and industrial giants like Amazon, Apple, Palantir and Micron Technology—the latter of which is also a recipient of CHIPS Act funding.

This creates a troubling feedback loop: the government invests in a company, that company donates to a presidential project, and the officials overseeing these arrangements are themselves billionaires from the world of finance and industry. As a watchdog group report highlighted by The Washington Post noted, most of the ballroom donors have high-stakes business before the administration, from government contracts to federal investigations. When the government is both a company’s owner and its regulator, and its leaders are drawn from the same pool of corporate titans, the traditional guardrails that prevent conflicts of interest are effectively removed.  Not to worry, the Inspectors General were removed as well.

Theory & Practice: The Cascade Effect

Organizational theory provides a powerful lens through which to view the current events at the Pentagon. As described by the Harvard Business Review, the “cascade effect” explains how changes at the highest levels of an organization inevitably flow downwards, influencing every subsequent layer. Leadership changes are not isolated events; they are signals that communicate new priorities and behavioral norms. When senior leaders are removed for perceived disloyalty, it sends a clear message to the entire organization: the rules have changed. Subordinates observe the consequences of their superiors’ actions and adjust their own behavior accordingly. This creates a cascade of conformity, where risk-aversion and loyalty to the new leadership replace independent judgment and adherence to long-standing institutional values. The result is a culture that is more responsive to the desires of the leader and less anchored to its foundational principles.

The Watchdogs: Inspectors General

The dismantling of oversight extends beyond legal counsel to another critical layer of accountability: the Inspectors General. On the night of January 24, 2025, the administration fired at least 17 independent watchdogs in what critics called a “Friday night purge.” These officials serve as internal investigators within federal agencies, tasked with rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse. They are specifically designed to operate independently across different administrations, protected by federal law requiring a 30-day notice to Congress before removal.

The firings were conducted via email, citing “changing priorities,” and included the Inspectors General for the Department of Defense, State Department, and Veterans Affairs, among others. In September 2025, a federal judge ruled that the administration had unlawfully fired the IGs by failing to provide the required congressional notice, though the judge declined to reinstate them. Eight of the fired watchdogs filed a federal lawsuit claiming unlawful termination.

National Security Watchdogs Removed

While not all names were publicly disclosed, the purge included several IGs with direct national security responsibilities:

Notably, the two most senior intelligence watchdogs—Thomas Monheim (Inspector General of the Intelligence Community) and Robin Ashton (CIA Inspector General)—resigned in November 2024, just before the new administration took office, signaling a preemptive exodus of oversight officials.

Doesn’t Align With Your Understanding?

Multiple sources confirm the number of IGs fired on January 24, 2025:

• American Oversight, a non-profit watchdog group, stated: “17 federal inspectors general were summarily fired without explanation or proper notice to Congress.”
• A federal court ruling in September 2025 confirmed that the administration had unlawfully fired 17 inspectors general.
• News reports from NPR, CNN, Politico, and others all cited “at least 17” or “more than a dozen” IGs fired in the “Friday night purge.”

When the government removes the investigators who ensure accountability, it creates an environment where conflicts of interest can flourish unchecked. The simultaneous removal of the DoD, State, and VA watchdogs, combined with the preemptive resignations of the top intelligence IGs, represents a systematic dismantling of national security oversight.

A Note on Perspective and Purpose

I strive for independence in this analysis, though I recognize that complete objectivity is an aspiration, not a guarantee. We all bring our experiences and perspectives to the information we encounter. What I commit to providing is not opinion, but synthesis—a compilation of publicly documented facts, properly sourced and presented in context.

The events described in this newsletter are not matters of interpretation. The removal of senior military officials, the firing of Inspectors General, the systematic departure of Department of Justice attorneys, the reduction of IRS enforcement capacity, the government’s acquisition of equity stakes in private companies, and the appointment of a historically wealthy cabinet are all verifiable through multiple independent sources. These are things that have happened, regardless of how one chooses to evaluate them.

If you find yourself surprised by the scope or nature of these developments, it may be worth examining the breadth of your information sources. These are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of institutional change, with consequences that transcend partisan allegiance. They deserve serious consideration, not reflexive dismissal or defense.

This newsletter exists to provide what is increasingly scarce: a coherent synthesis of complex developments for professionals who lack the time to track them individually. My aim is to illuminate patterns and provide context, allowing you to draw your own informed conclusions. If that serves you, I hope you will continue to read and share your perspective.

In Their Own Words

Tom Nichols, The Atlantic: “The first thing you do is not get rid of the generals. The first thing you do is get rid of the lawyers.”

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI): “This is a purge… It should send a shiver down the spine of every American who cares about the apolitical nature of our military.”

Adm. James Stavridis (Ret.), speaking to NPR: “The sudden relief of so many senior officers is unprecedented and deeply troubling. It injects a level of political consideration into the chain of command that is antithetical to our democratic values.”