Trump's Effort to Inject Politics Into US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Top Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed 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 political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 both sides think they are right.”

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