Trump's Push to Politicize American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Top General

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach 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 is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

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

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”