Pentagon would have to explain future JAG firings under NDAA provision

Nearly a year after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth purged the top judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, lawmakers are poised to require an explanation if it happens again.

A provision in the compromise version of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act would require the defense secretary to provide Congress with notice and a reason for the removal soon after a top JAG’s dismissal.

“If the Judge Advocate General is removed from office before the end of the term … the Secretary of Defense shall, not later than five days after the removal takes effect, submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives notice that the Judge Advocate General is being removed and a statement of the reason for the removal,” the provision reads. 

The provision was originally inserted in the Senate version of the NDAA, which passed in October. It appears in the 3,000-plus-page version agreed by House and Senate negotiators, which was released late Sunday evening and could see a House vote within days.

Three days after Hegseth fired the services’ JAGs in February, he said that the lawyers were “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”

The top JAGs—sometimes called TJAGs—are the principal legal advisers to leaders of their service branch.

Fears are growing within the national-security legal community that military legal guidance is being ignored, especially as seemingly unjustified airstrikes on alleged drug boats continue. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, inserted the language into the Senate’s version of the NDAA this summer. 

“Secretary Hegseth’s attack on independent legal advisors doesn’t make anyone safer. I’m fighting to rein in this abuse of power and ensure transparency from this administration,” Warren said in a July news release.

A Warren spokesperson had no further comment on Sunday evening.

One former JAG said the language was a notable development, but was skeptical about how transparent the Pentagon would be about such removals. Military branches have often offered no more than some variation of the phrase “loss of trust and confidence” in explaining the dismissal of officers from top leadership roles. 

“I hope that this helps. My fear is that the Department of Defense will cite generic rationale for removing the individual,” the former JAG said. “My other hope is that we never see a future TJAG removed in a way that this current administration has done it.”  

The Air Force’s top legal role has remained vacant since Hegseth fired Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer on Feb. 21. Maj. Gen. Rebecca Vernon, who had served as the service’s deputy JAG, became acting TJAG earlier this year but stepped away from the job in October and is set to retire by Jan. 1, Defense One first reported. An Air Force spokesperson said there’s an acting TJAG but the deputy JAG position remains vacant.