Can you Order your Troops to Fire upon Americans?

That’s an excellent question, and I can immediately identify the piece of information that is highly unusual and likely what you found puzzling.

The most unusual and significant detail in that report is the sheer scope and abrupt nature of the meeting:

The puzzling element is the simultaneous gathering of literally hundreds of the top-ranking U.S. military officers (one-star rank or higher), many of whom are stationed globally, for a meeting with no publicly stated reason.¹

https://thelivingbreathingjamesbrown.com/2025/09/26/unearthing-the-past-can-be-shocking/

Here is why this is particularly puzzling:

1. Massive Scope and Disruption: The U.S. military has about 800 generals and admirals in total. Summoning “hundreds” of them, including high-ranking commanders stationed across the globe and in different time zones, is logistically difficult and highly disruptive to military operations worldwide.² Such a massive meeting is typically reserved for major crises or fundamental, pre-planned strategy reviews, neither of which is implied by the report.
2. Lack of Explanation: The directive gave no reason for the gathering. In the military, transparency and clear communication are paramount, especially for orders involving top leadership. A sudden, unexplained directive of this magnitude generates immediate internal and public uncertainty.
3. Context of Purges: This unexplained gathering is happening on the heels of repeated, unusual firings of senior military leaders by Secretary Hegseth, including the Navy’s top officer and the Air Force’s second-highest officer, often “without explanation.” When a leadership meeting follows unexplained firings, it raises significant concerns about a potential, large-scale, impending purge or a radical shift in policy.³

The combination of the unusual logistics, the secrecy, and the preceding personnel actions is what makes this meeting so noteworthy and troubling to observers.

You are absolutely correct. The firing of the top military lawyers—known as the Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs)—is arguably the most critical and concerning aspect of the recent shake-ups at the Pentagon.¹

This action, which involved the removal of the top uniformed legal officers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, is unprecedented in recent U.S. history and is being viewed not just as a personnel change, but as an attack on the rule of law within the military.²

Here is a full explanation of why the firings of the JAGs are so significant:

1. The Core Role of Military Lawyers

The Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) are the supreme legal authorities in their respective services. Their job is historically apolitical and essential for the integrity of the military:³

• Legal Gatekeepers: They advise top commanders (including the Secretary of Defense and the President) on whether orders comply with the Constitution, federal law (like the Uniform Code of Military Justice), and the international Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC).⁴
• Rules of Engagement (ROE): They are responsible for interpreting and setting the rules of engagement for forces in the field, which directly impacts how the military fights and ensures compliance with international law regarding civilian protection.⁵
• Military Justice: They oversee the entire military justice system, including the prosecution of servicemembers accused of crimes, including war crimes.⁶

2. The Stated and Underlying Rationale for the Firings

The justification given by Secretary Hegseth for their removal was that they were “not well-suited” for the job and that he wanted lawyers who would “not exist to attempt to be roadblocks” to orders from the Commander-in-Chief.⁷

The underlying reasons, according to critics and reporting, are far more ideological:

• “Warrior Ethos”: Secretary Hegseth has long argued that military lawyers have been too restrictive in their interpretation of the Laws of Armed Conflict, which he believes has hindered the military’s ability to “fight and win wars” and has compromised the “warrior ethos.”⁸
• Removing “Roadblocks”: The removals are viewed as an effort to install new JAGs who will provide more expansive (less restrictive) legal advice that supports more aggressive tactics and is less likely to challenge orders from the White House.⁹

3. The Major Concerns and Consequences

The mass removal of the top legal experts is alarming to legal scholars and former military officers because it poses a direct threat to the checks and balances within the Department of Defense:¹⁰

• Compromised Independence: It sends a message that the independence and integrity of legal advice are less valued than political loyalty, potentially chilling the willingness of other JAG officers to provide unvarnished, dissenting legal opinions.¹¹
• Increased Risk of War Crimes: By potentially loosening the interpretation of the rules of engagement (LOAC), the firings are feared to increase the likelihood of U.S. forces being involved in law of war violations, putting servicemembers themselves at greater risk of prosecution.¹²
• Politicization of Justice: It raises concerns that the military justice system could become politicized, especially since the JAGs oversee cases involving accused war criminals—a topic the President has personally intervened in before.¹³

In essence, while the firing of a Joint Chiefs Chairman is a big personnel change, the firing of the JAGs is seen as an attempt to fundamentally change the legal and ethical operating system of the U.S. military.