Hegseth civilian protection undermined by lawmakers' accusations

Lawmakers Accuse Hegseth of Undermining Civilian Protection Efforts

Hegseth civilian protection undermined, a group of ten Democratic lawmakers declared in a forceful letter Sunday, accusing the Defense Secretary of a "leadership failure" that they contend endangers service members and tarnishes the military's global reputation. The missive, spearheaded by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, directly challenged Hegseth's role in what they described as the "gutting" of a program specifically designed to safeguard non-combatants. This criticism aligns with findings from a recent Defense Department inspector general report, which characterized civilian protection initiatives as largely dormant.

The lawmakers also pointed to investigative journalism, including reporting from ProPublica, as a driving force behind their push to revitalize the framework known as civilian harm mitigation and response, or CHMR. They asserted that the Trump administration has actively "defunded and impeded civilian protection efforts," potentially even contravening federal law in the process. When approached for comment, a Pentagon spokesperson offered a standard response, stating that the Department would address congressional correspondence directly with its authors.

A Pattern of Retreat Amidst Conflict

This alleged retreat from prioritizing civilian safety gained stark international attention earlier this year. An incident involving an apparent U.S. strike resulted in the deaths of numerous children and teachers at a school on the very first day of the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. The Pentagon has confirmed that this event is currently under investigation. Beyond this tragedy, conflict monitoring organizations have documented an increase in reported civilian casualties, particularly in Somalia and Yemen. Both regions have witnessed a substantial increase in U.S. strikes since the second Trump administration took office.

In March, interviews with current and former national security officials from across the political spectrum revealed a prevailing sentiment: the dismantling of civilian protections is part of a broader strategic shift within the military. This remaking, according to these sources, emphasizes increased aggression while simultaneously diminishing accountability.

CHMR's Mandate and Its Halting Under Hegseth

The harm mitigation leadership, established within a dedicated Civilian Protection Center of Excellence mandated by Congress in 2022, was conceived to decrease civilian casualties stemming from U.S. military operations. This issue has plagued administrations throughout the post-9/11 era and its associated "forever wars." The core objective was to integrate prevention specialists directly into targeting teams and cultivate an institutional culture that unequivocally placed civilian security at the forefront, adhering strictly to U.S. law and international rules of warfare.

Despite public endorsements from senior military leaders, who spoke of both a moral imperative to protect civilian lives and the practical necessity of striking enemy targets accurately, the program's rollout stalled under Hegseth. Reports from current and former staffers indicate that by the spring of 2025, amidst U.S. operations in Yemen that reportedly claimed dozens of civilian lives, the Defense Department began dismantling the CHMR mission. This move was reportedly justified as being out of sync with Hegseth’s doctrine of "lethality."

“The Trump administration , potentially in violation of federal law , has defunded and impeded civilian protection efforts,” the lawmakers asserted in their letter.

Hegseth has, on multiple occasions, voiced his disapproval of what he terms "guardrails" that he believes hinder combat forces. By the time of the Iran school strike, personnel familiar with the situation reported that the protection mission had been drastically reduced, by approximately 90%, leaving only a skeletal staff to monitor civilian harm issues. This occurred even as the Defense Department intensified its strike tempo across large parts of Africa and the Middle East.

The "Insurgent Math" of Civilian Casualties

Militant groups have historically exploited civilian casualties as a means to bolster recruitment and garner support. Retired General Stanley McChrystal, who formerly commanded U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has described this phenomenon as "insurgent math," positing that for every innocent life lost, a minimum of ten new adversaries are created. The lawmakers explicitly linked these dynamics to their concerns, stating, "The Trump administration’s military adventurism overseas, combined with its obvious disregard for civilians, do not make the American people or our service members safer."

Among the signatories of the letter were three military veterans: Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Representative Jason Crow of Colorado. The correspondence concluded by posing twenty questions to Hegseth, which the lawmakers expect answers to by July 9th. These questions include requests for the most recent staffing and funding figures for CHMR, as well as an explanation for the department's perceived lack of cooperation with the inspector general's investigation.

Questions of Accountability and Future Direction

Current and former CHMR personnel acknowledge the difficulty in definitively stating whether a more robust prevention team could have averted civilian casualties in Yemen and Iran. However, they expressed a strong conviction that the program held the potential to make a real difference, particularly in providing transparency and facilitating immediate inquiries into civilian deaths. Open-source investigative outlets swiftly released video evidence following the strike on the school near an Iranian military compound in Minab, suggesting a U.S.-made Tomahawk missile was likely responsible. Reports from The Washington Post, citing officials familiar with the inquiry, indicated that the school was on a U.S. target list and might have been mistakenly identified as a military site.

Despite the passage of nearly five months, the Trump administration has yet to offer a full explanation for the incident. Hegseth, in March, stated that the command investigation "will take as long as necessary to address all the matters surrounding this incident." Annie Shiel, U.S. director of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, an organization advocating for noncombatant protection in warfare, emphasized the critical nature of congressional support at a time when the CHMR mission faces an uncertain future. She warned that the department appears to be in violation of established U.S. laws and policies, which have been shaped by hard-won lessons from past conflicts and have historically enjoyed bipartisan backing across multiple administrations.

A Cycle of Review and Erosion

Analysts observe a recurring historical pattern in the military's approach to civilian protection: a catastrophic event resulting in civilian deaths prompts pledges of reviews and reforms from the Pentagon, followed by a gradual fading of the issue from public view and oversight until the next disaster strikes. A poignant example occurred during the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, when a missile strike in Kabul tragically killed an aid worker and nine of his family members, including seven children. Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued an apology and vowed that the department would "endeavor to learn from this horrible mistake."

• This incident, alongside a New York Times investigation into civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes, directly contributed to the adoption of the civilian harm mitigation and response action plan in 2022.
• Proponents viewed the plan not as a panacea, but as a vital step towards disrupting the cycle of intermittent attention by institutionalizing civilian protection as a year-round mission.
• Currently, that mission is in a state of limbo.
• According to the inspector general's May report, defense leadership "withheld access" to departmental tools needed for tracking the program's implementation.

The gravity of the situation was underscored in May when Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat from Washington, directly confronted Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll during a hearing. Smith stated, "You are in violation of the law right now on civilian harm." He sought clarity on whether Driscoll believed it was acceptable to disregard congressional legislation or what actions were being planned to rectify the situation.

This latest letter emerges as critics, including some Republicans and veteran commanders, are increasingly vocal about Hegseth's broader efforts to reshape the Department of Defense. The Trump administration has controversially referred to the department as the "Department of War.Hegseth's dismissals of high-ranking officers without public explanation have drawn bipartisan condemnation, with accusations that these actions are driven by political retribution, racism, and bias against women. Hegseth himself has been outspoken in his criticism of military officers who he believes have lauded diversity, stating in one speech, "We became ‘the woke department.’ … We’re done with that shit." He has maintained that he will not discuss the specific reasons for the firings out of respect for the officers involved, but suggested it was "very difficult to change the culture of a department that was destroyed by the wrong perspectives with the same officers that were there."

Public backlash followed Hegseth's decision last month to effectively remove General Chris Donahue, a respected four-star commander with a distinguished career in special forces. In 2023, Donahue had dismissed concerns over "wokeness" as irrelevant, stating, "We’re focused on people, war-fighting and making sure that we’re prepared for the next fight. There ain’t no ‘woke’ here."