Trump is conducting large-scale purges in the security forces. What does this mean?

The recent resignation of U.S. Navy Secretary John Phelan fits into a major personnel reshuffle by U.S. President Donald Trump: after his return to the White House, more than a dozen high-ranking military personnel have already lost their posts. Personnel changes increase the importance of personal loyalty and accelerate the concentration of power around the White House, reducing the role of independent decision-making centers in the management system. What you need to know about the changing political landscape in the United States is in the Izvestia article.

Phelan's resignation

• The US administration dismissed Secretary of the Navy Phelan, despite the aggravation of the situation around the naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Phelan's deputy, Hung Kao, has been appointed interim head of the Navy.

• In December, Phelan, along with Donald Trump, presented an initiative to build the "Golden Fleet" — new battleships that were to be named after the president. At that presentation, Trump publicly praised Phelan, emphasizing his managerial qualities and role in the future modernization of the fleet.

• However, over the past few months, disagreements have been intensifying between John Phelan and his leadership — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Deputy Steven Feinberg. Phelan has been criticized for slow reforms in shipbuilding and for not advancing Navy initiatives as quickly as management expected. In addition, Hegseth believed that Phelan was often insubordinate.

The US and Iran have not reached a deal. Why is this important?

• The idea of the "Golden Fleet" played against Phelan: Pete Hegseth saw it as an attempt to get closer to Trump. In addition, the cost of one ship is estimated at about $17 billion, which is controversial, as the Pentagon relies on cheaper unmanned solutions to counter China.

In general, Trump's "Golden Fleet" project turned out to be far from reality. The US president wanted to build the first battleship before the end of his presidential term. But the problem is that the United States is no longer the industry leader: its market share is only 0.1%, and construction time has almost doubled. Previously, submarines were made in five years, now it takes about 10, and the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy can be built in 17 years (from 2010 to 2027). At the same time, they want to equip the new battleships with technologies that the Pentagon does not yet have. The idea of building them in Europe also didn't help, and the resignation of Navy Secretary Phelan only showed that Washington has ambitious plans, but the United States currently lacks the capacity to implement them.

System purges

• After Donald Trump returned to the White House, more than 10 senior military officials lost their posts, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Brown, the Chief of Staff of the Navy, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Jim Slife, and the chief of Military Intelligence, Jeffrey Cruz.

• Phelan's dismissal occurred against the backdrop of the conflict with Iran and about three weeks after the removal of Randy George, the Chief of Staff of the US Army, and two other high-ranking generals. At the same time, Hegseth remains at odds with Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, who is supported by US Vice President Jay Dee Vance.

Israel emerged as the loser of the war with Iran. And here's why

• In total, three cabinet members lost their posts in two months: Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-Deremer, Homeland Security Chief Christie Lynn Noem, and U.S. Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi. The expert community believes that Energy Secretary Christopher Allen Wright and FBI Director Cash Patel may also leave in the near future.

• Trump has staged a personnel "detox" in which he builds a management team of the most dedicated figures due to pressure from Democrats and Republicans. In the run-up to the midterm elections scheduled for November 3, it is convenient for the Trump administration to remove those who can be linked to the failures of the operation in Iran. At the same time, the reshuffle of senior positions in the Pentagon will not have a serious impact on the capabilities of the US Armed Forces, since the management system is largely decentralized. The main job of planning operations is performed by lower-ranking military personnel.

Management style

• The White House has not developed a sustainable strategy for the war against Iran and has changed its goals several times since the end of February. This has put the armed forces in a difficult position. Since the beginning of the war, according to official data, more than 10 American servicemen have been killed, and over 350 more have been injured.

• Despite the setbacks in the Middle East, the White House proposed to increase the Pentagon budget by 44% and bring it to $1.5 trillion. The authorities explain this by the growth of global threats and the need to increase the combat readiness of the army. Among the priorities is the creation of the Golden Dome missile defense system and the construction of 41 warships. The share of defense spending now stands at about 3% of GDP. The new plan is to increase the figure to 4.5%. At the same time, the White House is proposing to cut federal spending by $73 billion. The cuts will affect infrastructure, agriculture, social programs, and healthcare.

Pakistan played an unexpected role in the U.S.-Iran truce. Analysis

• The Pentagon faces additional challenges due to Pete Hegseth's management style. Hegseth focused on ideological issues within the Pentagon: he blocked the promotion of more than 10 officers, including women and members of minorities. Randy George tried to discuss this policy, but Hegseth declined the meeting.

• Joe Kent's departure from the post of head of the US National Counterterrorism Center has become another precedent that shows a split within the American management and security bloc. Kent publicly questioned the validity of the conflict, assessing the threat from Tehran as insufficient for a large-scale escalation. These views have come into conflict with the line of Hegseth, who supports a hard power course.

• At the same time, the Minister of Defense himself is actively looking for those responsible for the problems in the Strait of Hormuz within the department, but does not assume this responsibility. The expert community is confident that he underestimated Iran's capabilities and the consequences of a possible blockade of the strait. Hegseth's reliance solely on forceful pressure on Iran is also being criticized by experts. The US military experience shows that even significant superiority does not guarantee the achievement of goals.

The United States wants to start a war again. What you Need to Know about Washington's Foreign operations

The system is in chaos

• The situation around the Pentagon reflects the growing conflict between the political leadership and the military management system. Managers are increasingly making personnel decisions based on personal loyalty and a convergence of views, and professional experience is no longer the most important criterion. An environment is emerging in the United States in which generals and senior officers are forced to take into account the political line in order to maintain their positions.

• The conflicts between the Minister of War, Pete Hegseth, and key figures in the department have become systemic. Hegseth makes tough personnel decisions and dismisses generals even in conditions of active hostilities. Such steps change the traditional approach, which tends to maintain command stability in war conditions.

• Constant conflicts in the upper echelon of management slow down key processes, because decisions take longer to be made due to the need for coordination. In particular, there may be delays in the implementation of defense contracts, and coordination between structures becomes less effective. Therefore, the Trump administration is building a more rigid management vertical.

What does this mean?

• The general wave of dismissals in the administration and the Pentagon is shaping a broader trend of centralization of power around the president and his inner circle. In the ongoing personnel restructuring, loyalty and alignment with the political line of the White House are becoming key criteria. The dismissals indicate a desire to reduce internal centers of influence and speed up decision-making in the face of foreign policy tensions, including the war with Iran. As a result, the role of institutional autonomy of departments is decreasing, and personnel stability directly depends on the ability of officials to support the president's course without public disagreements.

When writing the material, Izvestia took into account the opinions of:

• Egor Toropov, Head of the Analytical Department of the HSE Directorate of Public Relations, American scholar;
• American political scientist Malek Dudakov;
• Pavel Koshkin, Senior Researcher at ISKRAN.