Senators Seek Guardrails Against JAG Firings in Must-Pass Defense Policy Bill

Firing a top military lawyer would require a congressional notification that includes a substantive justification under a defense policy bill advanced by the Senate Armed Services Committee this week.

The provision in the Senate's version of this year's National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, marks Congress' first concrete, bipartisan action in response to the Trump administration's purge of the top uniformed lawyers for the Air Force, Army and Navy earlier this year.

Under the bill, Congress would have to receive a rationale within five days of the removal of a service's top judge advocate general, a congressional official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed Friday.

Read Next: Coast Guard Selects 'Proven' Command Master Chief for Top Enlisted Position

The provision in what's considered a must-pass bill comes after the Trump administration has provided little explanation for the February removal of the judge advocates general for the Air Force, Navy and Army.

The JAGs were fired amid a broader purge of top military officers, including the firing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of naval operations and the Air Force vice chief of staff.

Days after the removal of the JAGs, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters the firings were necessary, because he didn't want them to pose any "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief." Pressed at a recent congressional hearing on why any of the officers, including the JAGs, were fired, Hegseth said only that all generals "serve at the pleasure of the president."

The firings and Hegseth's subsequent comments about removing "roadblocks" raised concerns from legal experts and military lawyers that the administration was expecting a traditionally apolitical role to support the president's agenda.

The provision in the Senate NDAA requiring a formal notification and justification was proposed by Democrats as a direct response to the Trump administration's firings, said a congressional source who spoke to Military.com on the condition of anonymity to discuss behind-the-scenes details.

"This mark includes important guardrails to ensure continued professionalism in the military, including requiring congressional notification for removing the military's top legal advisers and reiterating the importance of independent legal advice of judge advocates, but we need to do much more to address the destruction done by this administration," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel subcommittee, said at a subcommittee meeting this week.

While the provision originated with Democrats, it was included in the underlying text of the personnel subcommittee's portion of the NDAA, an early step in the process of crafting the bill that suggests broad bipartisan support for the proposal.

The congressional official who briefed reporters said Republicans backed requiring a notification not to "hamstring" the administration, but rather to ensure Congress is "made aware and a partner" in significant decisions.

Trump has ignored other requirements for congressional notifications, such as when he fired several inspectors general this year without providing the legally required 30 days' notification and substantive, case-specific rationale for the firings.

The congressional source who spoke to Military.com acknowledged a notification requirement for firing JAGs, if it becomes law, could similarly be ignored by Trump. Still, the source added, lawmakers felt it was important to enshrine a mandate into law so that they can point to a clear statute if he flouts it.

The NDAA was advanced out of the Senate Armed Services Committee after a closed-door debate this week. It must still be approved by the full Senate and then reconciled with the House version of the bill, which the House Armed Services Committee is debating next week, before going to Trump's desk to be signed into law.

Related: 'People Are Very Scared': Trump Administration Purge of JAG Officers Raises Legal, Ethical Fears