A “plucking board” of retired generals thinned out senior officers prior to World War II. Trump officials have proposed a similar plan.
By Patty Nieberg Task & Purpose
How the U.S. military chooses and promotes its generals and admirals — the highest-ranking officers in the military — rarely gets attention. That changed this month with reports that officials appointed under President-elect Donald Trump may take a far more direct role in shaping the military’s general officer corps.
Last week, the process that moves three- and four-star generals upwards came to the forefront when a promotion for Army Lt. Gen. Christopher Donahue was blocked by a Republican senator — a potential early warning sign of the Trump Administration’s reported plan to target senior military leaders who were in command during the military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Donahue was the ‘last man out of Afghanistan‘ as the commander of the 82nd Airborne in the final days of the military’s exit from Kabul and was up for his fourth star to command Army Europe and Africa.
Donahue’s hold-up came just after a Wall Street Journal report that Trump officials have drafted an executive order that could put three- and four-star officers on the chopping block for “lacking in requisite leadership qualities.” To do that, Trump officials may assemble a “warrior board,” according to some reports, of retired generals to review and recommend removals of three- and four-star officers they deem “unfit.” How such a board would define “unfit” remains unclear but Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense, Fox News host Pete Hegseth, has previously talked about firing senior generals who have been “involved in, any of the DEI woke s—,” referring to diversity, equity and inclusion policies, on the Shawn Ryan Show podcast. “Either you’re in for warfighting, and that’s it. That’s the only litmus test we care about.”
Retired generals and experts interviewed by Task & Purpose worried that any board designed by political figures could be a de facto loyalty test to Trump or an effort to get rid of generals who promote diversity policies instead of an assessment of leadership qualities, past performance and merit — something that the current process aims to look at when choosing officers.
World War II ‘Plucking Board’
There is precedent for retired generals coming together to weed out current senior leadership in the military. In 1941, Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” reviewed records of senior serving military officers to replace them with younger junior officers.
That board was approved by Congress as World War II loomed ahead to prune through an Army that did not have ‘up-or-out’ rules, but rather a bloated, aging officer corps in which below-average leaders could stay in one job or rank nearly indefinitely and where senior positions often opened up only due to retirements.
In the decades that followed, promotion and retention rules could vary within a service.
The modern military’s rank and promotion structure began in 1980. According to Kate Kuzminski, director of the Military, Veterans, and Society Program at the Center for New American Security, a Washington DC think tank noted the 1980 Defense Officer Personnel Management Act which “set into rhythm this 20-year up-or-out retirement system.” The law enshrined up-or-out, and standardized rules, requirements and timeframes for promotions, including for generals.
“If you’re not promoted to the next rank, you’re forced into retirement. We didn’t have that system back in the day and so that was the only other model that we had,” Kuzmiski said. “That again was not based on any kind of loyalty test, but rather on a kind of stagnation.”
Today, the time frame for an officer to become a general is nearly 25 years to become a brigadier general and almost 40 to become a four-star general, Kuzminski said.
The number of generals at the top of the military has garnered the attention of Congress, which authorizes the number of general and flag officers. Though the proportion to the total force has risen, it still remains “substantially lower” than during the Cold War when the military was “much larger in size,” according to the Congressional Research Service. In 1965, the military had one general for every 2,000 troops, while today’s military has roughly one for every 1,600, according to CRS. A 2022 Defense Department demographics report, shows 866 officers with the rank of brigadier general and above with the majority coming from the Army and Air Force.
Critics have said that the higher number of general flag officers adds to the layered bureaucracy and is wasteful in part because of the high salary costs; the average 2019 salary ranged between roughly $200,000 and $239,000 per year, according to CRS.
Defense Department officials explained the growing general officer population to the Government Accountability Office for a 2014 report as a necessity to the larger number of commands, overseas contingency operation plans and congressionally directed positions like director of Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.
Three- and four-stars
The process for selecting and nominating three and four-star generals can vary widely based on the preferences of the administration and secretary of defense.
Military service chiefs and secretaries typically select three-star candidates with input from the secretary of defense approval and the White House. Four-stars are generally handled the same way, but with a “much higher likelihood” that the defense secretary or President gets involved, a senate aide said.
Current Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, for instance, “does a formal interview process,” a former four-star officer told Task & Purpose. “Everybody does it a little bit different. Then of course I had an interview with the President.”
Task & Purpose spoke to six former general officers for this story. Some requested to speak anonymously because of the desire to remain apolitical and the pressure former high-ranking officers feel to not speak publicly about current military leaders and choices.
Former generals also noted that three- and four-star billets are different from the lower ranks because nominees are not promoted into the rank and then assigned to a job, but rather are chosen for a specific command or job and then promoted to assume that role. As a result, knowledge of a geographic region, field experience, or previous deployments might qualify or disqualify a general for promotion to a position rather than the strict evaluation of their performance in previous jobs that determine promotion lower in the ranks.
Retired commanding general in Iraq and Army chief of staff, four-star Gen. George Casey said as a service chief, he met with the chairman of the joint chiefs and Defense Secretary Robert Gates about twice a year to discuss which two-stars could fill three-star positions and which three-stars would make good four-star picks. In practical terms, they were picking officers to mentor and groom for future three- and four-star jobs, he said, giving the example of the first woman to become a four-star, Gen. Ann Dunwoody.
“She was a logistician and so she was clearly going to the Army material command and we groomed her in several three-star positions to prepare her for that job,” Casey said.
In the U.S. military, there are no permanent grades above major general — meaning three and four-star generals assume the number of stars once they are in the position. If a four-star general officer leaves their job and stays on active duty but does not assume another four-star position, they revert back to major general.
Four-star nominees typically meet with the Secretary of Defense but again it depends on the personality. Casey noted it was common practice for former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to meet with four-star nominees based on his experiences in the private sector.
“[Rumsfeld] said, ‘I want to interview every three- and four-star nominee,’ and that took people back,” Casey said. “Some people were affronted by it. I saw it as: he’s exercising his appropriate level of civilian control,” Casey said.
While not a hard and fast rule, the President will also meet with important four-star billets like Casey, who was nominated to be a commander in Iraq during the war. Casey said he and his wife were invited by Rumsfeld to a dinner that former President George W Bush was having for former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.
“That’s the first time I met him. We were able to interact over dinner,” Casey said. “For the key four-star billets, there’s usually face-to-face interaction with the President. There is not in every case.”
‘Needs of the Army’
During the general officer promotion process for one and two-star generals, promotion decisions are based on criteria handed down by the service secretaries that may specify the number of officers needed who have certain field experiences or skill sets, former generals said. For instance, the brigadier generals selected for promotion are determined by the “needs of the Army” in terms of overall number as well as specific backgrounds or competencies like infantry, public affairs, Special Forces, aviation, intelligence, one retired general officer who served on a couple of boards said.
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton gave the example of, “one board I watched, we needed to have a Chinese speaking brigadier general, preferably combat arms to serve as defense attache in China.”
Before reaching colonel, officers get promoted based on merit, “after that, it’s who you know,” an Army public affairs officer said noting that it’s not unlike the private sector or any other career field.
At the junior officer levels, the services have adopted new policies aimed at countering an officer pipeline reliant on the “good ol’ boys club” which has generally referred to the majority white male officer corps promoting and shielding their own from punishments. In 2020, the Department of Defense announced that the services would eliminate officer photos from promotion packets to reduce any racial bias from raters. The changes have been intended to create a more diverse pipeline of junior entrants which “sets the stage” for who can be retained and promoted to senior officer positions, according to a 2023 RAND Corporation report focused on the Army.
Retired generals interviewed by Task & Purpose acknowledged personal bias based on characteristics not germane to an officer’s work in the military as an inevitable part of the people-centric process where previous assignments and reputations matter. At the same time, some former generals said that merit brought them so far until luck kicked in.
“You don’t know how lucky you are until you sit on a board and see all those folks that are so good and you kind of sit there and say how the hell did I make it?” said retired Maj. Gen. William Nash, who served on a number of selection boards, including one for promoting brigadier generals.
“My timing was great for me. It was lucky and it worked out but I’m under no illusions that I’m the only person that could have done that job,” the retired four-star officer said.
The Senate’s role
The President has the authority to appoint three and four-star general officers but they are ultimately confirmed by the Senate — a framework according to the Congressional Research Service which allows for congressional oversight “while providing substantial latitude” to the executive branch.
The Senate is involved in confirming all active duty officers who reach the rank of major (O-4) and above. The list, which can contain thousands of names, go through the Senate Armed Services Committee and once approved, go onto the Senate floor where they are usually passed by a unanimous consent vote, a Senate aide said.
Typically, Senate confirmation hearings are reserved for four-star command positions like combatant commanders, military service chiefs, Joint Chiefs of Staff, major theater commands, and agency chiefs. However, there are other four-star positions that are not required to go before the committee like staff positions and functional commands. Rarely do 3-star nominees go before the committee, the aide said.
Nominees sign a general sheet where they agree to provide “a personal view even if it differs from that of the Administration,” Casey said. They also submit answers to 100 or so Advance Policy Questions at least a week in advance to the Senate Armed Services Committee that cover operations, strategy, and policy topics. Most nominees also try to meet with as many SASC members a possible ahead of their confirmation hearings. There, senators usually ask about their leadership plans or try to get their commitments on policy proposals, the senate aide said.
“The Senate Armed Services Committee controls it. If you don’t get by them, you’re not gonna get the job,” the retired four-star officer said. “It doesn’t matter what the President wants. It doesn’t matter what your service wants. It doesn’t matter what the joint chiefs want. If you don’t get by the SASC, then you’re not gonna get that job.”
The number of general flag officer positions in each military service and their required duties are dictated by federal statute and can be altered by federal lawmakers. For example, in 2011, Congress specified that the chief of the National Guard Bureau should be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with “the specific responsibility of addressing matters involving non-Federalized National Guard forces in support of homeland defense and civil support missions.”
Kuzminski said the White House has the authority to do a “wholesale realignment” but it still requires oversight from Congress.
“A president can unilaterally fire a general officer, but he cannot unilaterally confirm a general officer,” Kuzminski said. “If he goes ahead and fires all the sitting generals right now, then there has to be a Senate confirmation of every single general officer that backfilled that fired individual.”
What would this mean? Kuzminski said, “a good picture of what that could look like” in reality could be similar to the situation caused by Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s (R-Ala.) protest against the Defense Department’s abortion travel policy which held up more than 200 general officer confirmations.
“Holds are a useful tool that the Senate should have when they have questions about the performance of the person being reviewed for confirmation — so if you did something bad, you failed at your job, you did not live up to the principles of being a general officer — the Senate has every right to place a hold, investigate and not confirm you,” she said. “This is just a blanket hold. We don’t like what the civilians of DoD are doing. We’re gonna make it hurt.”
The holds led to hundreds of officers in “acting” roles rather than confirmed positions.
“You had someone acting who did not have the experience, did not have the authority in that position,” she said. “If a conflict breaks out between China and Taiwan and your Army commander in the Indo-Pacific Theater is not a confirmed individual, just acting, there are severe limitations on the decisions that they can make.
Find the original article in its entirety on Task & Purpose.
READ NEXT: Illegal Immigrant’s Bold Claim On Gun Rights Sparks Outrage
