Trump Was Right to Fire Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield
The time for double standards is over. An apolitical military must be apolitical—and focused on the task of winning wars.
United States Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, who had been serving as the U.S. military representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), blazed a remarkable trail for herself.
Chatfield’s military credentials are indisputable. From serving as a helicopter pilot—flying the SH-3, CH-46D, and MH-60S—she went on to command the Helicopter Combat Support Squadron (HC-5) and Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC-25).
Chatfield then led a joint reconstruction team in Farah Province, Afghanistan, in 2008. She was also the first woman to hold the position of president of the prestigious Naval War College.
The Firing Heard ‘Round the World
Yet, according to Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell on Tuesday, “Secretary [Pete] Hegseth has removed U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield from her position as U.S. representative to NATO’s military committee due to a loss of confidence in her ability to lead.”
That announcement quickly led to a media firestorm—and predictable criticism from Democratic lawmakers, who insist that the firing was a result of chauvinism and accuse President Donald Trump of dismissing capable officers in favor of political cronies. For their part, Republicans have fired back that Chatfield was the public face of the dreaded DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) craze that has gripped the minds of America’s military leaders for far too long.
What very few of the commentators have noted, however, is that Chatfield—like the rest of those who work for the Executive Branch of the federal government—serves at the discretion of the sitting president. Trump and Hegseth fired Chatfield because they did not have confidence in her ability to lead. That may upset some people. It may even offend Chatfield and her supporters. But Trump does not need to defend his decision, or explain it; it’s just the way our system works.
This will do little to quiet the media. But the fact of the matter is that Trump ran, and was elected, on a platform that vowed to rein in perceived corruption and left-wing ideological excess in every area of the government. Part of that process involves placing people into leadership roles that jibe with Trump’s professed worldview, mercurial though it may be.
Vice Admiral Chatfield Didn’t Agree With Trump’s Worldview
And, for all the caterwauling of Chatfield’s supporters, the vice admiral has a public record of having made many statements in favor of DEI programs. Indeed, she is recorded as having “bemoaned that lawmakers in the House of Representatives [in 2015] were 80 percent males, proclaiming that ‘our diversity is our strength,” according to Michael Dorgan at Fox News.
Indeed, Chatfield’s remarks about Congress skirt dangerously close to politicization of what is supposed to be an apolitical role. When has it ever been acceptable for an officer to openly criticize Congress for any reason? For that matter, if Chatfield were a man, and he had stated his aversion to having women in Congress, would anyone have objected if he had been swiftly removed from his job with minimal debate?
Chatfield should not get a pass because the situation is the other way around. The fact is that in 2015, such talk was acceptable—and even fashionable. Consequently, at the time, Chatfield was let off the hook by the powers that be. But those comments are forever etched in the record. Chatfield isn’t immune from firing just because she made those comments a decade ago.
Nor was that statement a mere one-off on Chatfield’s part. In 2023, she described herself at the top of her LinkedIn page by saying, “Talks about #navalaviation and #dei.” The same year, she wrote on LinkedIn, “Got my wings in ’89 and would have never believed I’d be a member of the Flag Mess standing next to CNAF [Commander, Naval Air Forces] at the 2nd annual DEI conference in ’22!” It is worth noting that these posts have since been scrubbed from Chatfield’s LinkedIn, but they were preserved by the conservative website The Daily Signal.
The statements above blur the line between Chatfield’s personal opinions and her professional preferences. And these professed positions are fundamentally at odds both with Trump and Hegseth.
Compare Chatfield’s experience with that of a former colleague of mine who used to teach counterinsurgency at West Point. An Iraq War veteran, this individual wrote a humorous essay praising Trump’s infamous “covfefe” tweet in 2017 as being an example of Trump’s “very powerful […] ability to persuade.” As a result of this short, amusing essay, his career—and the heroic deeds that defined it—was railroaded on the grounds that he “got political.” Had his essay instead derided Trump, though, one can bet that his comments would have been ignored, or perhaps even celebrated, as Chatfield was.
The time for double standards is over. An apolitical military must be apolitical—and focused on the task of winning wars. Chatfield was the poster child of the Biden-era DEI policies that Trump railed against. So she was let go. Q.E.D.
Presidents Fire People All The Time
Let us not forget that Chatfield is hardly the only Biden-era military leader who has lost their position since Trump took office. Again, this used to be a fairly common practice that newly elected presidents engaged in—and only became embroiled in controversy in the media when Republicans did it.
Indeed, sometimes Republicans even fire Republicans! A former U.S. ambassador who, before becoming an ambassador, had served on Ronald Reagan’s national security council once recounted to me about the time that Brent Scowcroft came in as George H.W. Bush’s White House national security adviser during the transition from Ronald Reagan’s presidency to Bush. At that time, Scowcroft proceeded to unceremoniously fire countless national security staffers. The former ambassador whiffed that, “It felt like a transition from a Republican administration to a hostile Democratic one!” But no one outside the Executive Branch batted an eye.
Nor would Chatfield be the first officer with a stellar service record who was canned for irresponsible public political remarks.
President Barack Obama fired U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal for inopportune words uttered to a Rolling Stone reporter who was doing a profile on the general. A few of our readers may even be old enough to recall when President Harry S. Truman relieved legendary U.S. Army General Douglas MacArthur after he publicly criticized the way Truman was waging the Korean War.
Combat records and stellar service do not exempt military leaders from being fired by their commander-in-chief. If the individual does not mesh well with the stated policies and politics of the sitting commander-in-chief, he—or she—should go.
Don’t Forget About Trump’s NATO Problem—and Chatfield’s Role There
Finally, Chatfield’s role as the U.S. military representative to NATO likely played a role in her firing as well. After all, Chatfield, as Biden-era appointee, clearly did not share Trump’s views on NATO.
The question of NATO, and America’s future relationship with the alliance, is rapidly becoming a major flashpoint between Trump and the rest of the Washington establishment consensus. The president must avoid groupthink, of course. But neither can he be surrounded by an coterie of officers who virulently oppose his worldview. Following Chatfield’s ouster, she will likely be replaced by an officer whose conception of America’s role in NATO is closer to the president’s. This is not only appropriate, but desirable.
In short, Chatfield’s firing was constitutional, acceptable, appropriate, and ought to be uncontroversial. But, as with everything Trump does, it is now all that the denizens of Washington can talk about—until they move onto the next outrage.
About the Author: Brandon J. Weichert
Brandon J. Weichert, a Senior National Security Editor at The National Interest as well as a contributor at Popular Mechanics, who consults regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Times, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.
Image: Wikimedia Commons.