Bulwark Takes – Command Post: “Former General: Hegseth’s Loyalty Tests Are Paralyzing Military Promotions”

Date: February 19, 2026
Hosts: Ben Parker (B), Mark Hertling (C)
Episode Theme:
A candid and insider discussion about the politicization of military promotions under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the dangers of imposing political loyalty tests on U.S. generals, an analysis of recent controversial decisions involving top military and homeland security officials, and a review of U.S. participation at the Munich Security Conference—all through the experiences and expertise of retired General Mark Hertling.

Main Episode Topics

1. The abnormal hold on Army promotions and the emerging “loyalty test” (03:22)
2. Impact of politicization on the military profession and officer corps morale (10:58)
3. Listener question: Can the military still be trusted to uphold its constitutional oath? (12:45)
4. Secretary Noem’s decision to divert resources from a Coast Guard rescue (17:47)
5. Munich Security Conference: U.S. strategy and the value of Europe as a defense partner (22:09)

1. The Abnormal Hold on Military Promotions: Hegseth’s “Loyalty Test”

[03:22–10:58]

• Background:

  • A recent article by Mark Hertling details how a list of Army officers being promoted from colonel to brigadier general was stopped for months. The block is allegedly because Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth instructed the Secretary of the Army not to approve the list due to one officer: Colonel Dave Butler.
  • The issue? Butler previously served General Mark Milley — a Trump appointee who fell out of political favor.

• How promotions typically work:

  • General officer promotions are a highly regulated, multi-step process:
    • Around 30 colonels are selected each year (to replace retiring generals; the number is capped by law).
    • Boards of senior officers conduct secret votes, looking holistically at candidates.
    • Final list goes up the chain: Secretary of the Army → Secretary of Defense → President → Congress.
  • “It is a very dynamic and fascinating and extremely fair process... and it maintains civilian control over the Army.”
    (C, 05:19)

• What’s abnormal:

  • Normally, holds arise due to genuine concerns (e.g., DUIs, accountability for subordinates’ actions).
  • In this case, the rationale has been vague; DoD has only said Hegseth told Secretary Dan Driscoll to pull Butler “because of his past actions serving under General Mark Milley.”
  • “It’s really strange that one individual like this would be pulled out with no reason given.”
    (C, 06:54)

• Scary precedent:

  • This isn’t unique—Lt. Gen. D.A. Sims was also reportedly forced to retire due to Milley association.
  • Appears part of a pattern of purging officers linked to disfavored figures, even absent any wrongdoing.
  • “The result is it sends a chill through the rest of the officer corps to basically keep your head down and don’t make waves and be careful who you work for. Which is the most, you know, truly terrifying part of this whole thing.”
    (C, 10:23)

2. How Politicization Damages the U.S. Military

[10:58–12:45]

• Promotion as competition:

  • Military officers continuously compete for advancement; every assignment or association carries career risk.
  • Political purges based on prior superiors (rather than merit or conduct) break the model.

• Undermining Army values:

  • Hertling refers to Army’s core values:
    • “The two that are fascinating are the duty concept — do what’s right, do the things that you’re asked to do... and the other one is personal courage — speak up when you have to counter and perhaps disagree with your authorities... But when you’ve got this kind of a chill... it’s debilitating for the professionalism of the force.”
      (C, 11:36)

3. Listener Question: Can We Trust Senior Military Leaders to Withstand Illegal Orders?

[12:45–14:54]

• Jeremy Bates asks:
  Has the administration been able to replace principled leaders with less principled ones, and can we trust senior leadership to uphold their oath if given unlawful orders?

• Hertling’s response:

  • Confident officers will follow lawful orders and push back against illegal or unconstitutional commands.
  • But political intimidation is a serious concern:
    • “Are officers now intimidated by their civilian masters? Are they concerned about ... who they are serving alongside or what connections they have had in the past?... It’s very damaging to the profession of arms.”
      (C, 13:29)

• Bigger caution:

  • Keeping politics out of the military is essential for a democratic republic.
  • “When the military swears an oath to the Constitution and can trust that it is a professional organization that doesn’t have a partisan leaning one way or the other... It’s just focused on defending the country. ... Once you politicize the military, they get to start expressing their opinions... and when the military has all the power... that’s the reason we fought a revolution 250 years ago.”
    (B, 14:54)

4. Commentary on Secretary Kristi Noem’s Coast Guard Rescue Decision

[17:47–21:37]

• The story:

  • NBC report: Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem ordered a search plane to be pulled from a Coast Guard rescue mission for a lost crew member, prioritizing deportation flights instead. The missing Coastie was never found.

• Military ethos violated:

  • Hertling is direct:
    • “One of the key elements of being a military person ... is we will never leave a fallen comrade.”
      (C, 19:27)
  • “Toxic leadership” is when personal or political priorities override the bond and responsibility to comrades.

• Impact on trust:

  • Even if technicalities meant the lost aircraft didn’t change the outcome, the optics and the message are deeply damaging.
  • “The messaging seems that Secretary Noem wanted something that she thought was a higher priority without consideration of never leaving a fallen comrade.”
    (C, 19:48)

5. Munich Security Conference: Are We Abandoning Our “Secret Weapon”?

[22:09–29:02]

• Situation:

  • Marco Rubio (Secretary of State) and Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby attended as the Trump administration’s main representatives; Secretary Hegseth did not.
  • U.S. delegation repeated “you’re on your own” messages to European allies; Trump rhetoric—Europe must pay more—or else.

• The facts on NATO and European defense spending:

  • The claim that Trump made NATO allies pledge 5% of GDP to defense is false.
  • “There is not a single nation that has 5% of their GDP going to defense spending. The highest one is, including the United States... we contribute about 3.2, 3.3% of our GDP.”
    (C, 25:24)

• Why Europe is a U.S. “secret weapon”:

  • Presence in Europe is a force multiplier: way more than a security drain.
  • U.S. uses Europe for:
    • Forward basing,
    • hospitals, airfields, logistics hubs,
    • and as a jump-off point to multiple conflict zones (Middle East, Africa, etc.).
  • Cost is a tiny fraction of overall defense spending.
  • “We get more out of our presence in Europe than the Europeans get out of our presence there.”
    (C, 28:47)

• Ben Parker summarizes:

  • “All these things that we have in Europe that enable us to do other things in the world’s hotspots... I really recommend people go read it [the article].”
    (B, 29:02)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the loyalty test:

  • “Everyone associated with [Milley] has been slammed by Hegseth... The result is it sends a chill through the rest of the officers corps...”
    (C, 10:23)

• On professionalism versus political pressure:

  • “If I’m switching tides as a guardian of our nation’s security, depending on political input, boy, I’m not a professional at all. I have now become a political hack. And that’s something we don’t want.”
    (C, 16:55)

• On military ethos:

  • "One of the key elements of being a military person and wearing the uniform of our country is we will never leave a fallen comrade."
    (C, 19:27)

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [03:22] – The abnormal, politicized block on Army promotions
• [10:58] – How “loyalty tests” undercut military values
• [12:45] – Listener Q&A: Can military leaders resist illegal orders?
• [17:47] – Kristi Noem pulls a plane from a Coast Guard rescue
• [22:09] – Munich Security Conference: What U.S. representation says about strategy
• [28:47] – The real benefits of U.S. presence in Europe

Conclusion & Takeaway

This episode gives an expert, insider’s window into the impact political gamesmanship has on U.S. military professionalism and morale—from the dangers of “loyalty tests” to the critical (and misunderstood) value of global alliance networks. The discussion is frank and at times urgent, with a recurring theme: the U.S. military’s strength depends on its nonpartisan integrity and the trust of the citizens it serves.

Recommended further reading:

• “America’s Generals Shouldn’t Face Political Loyalty Tests” by Mark Hertling (at The Bulwark)
• “Europe is America’s Secret Weapon, and We’re Giving It Up” by Mark Hertling (at The Bulwark)