Trump's Drive to Inject Politics Into US Military ‘Reminiscent of Soviet Purges, Warns Top Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”