Strickland Presses Pete Hegseth on Firing of General Randy George and Military Promotion Integrity

Washington D.C. - On Wednesday, April 12, 2026, Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland questioned U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Strickland questioned Hegseth's decision to fire General George and his decision to deny four qualified servicemembers the promotion to Brigadier General. Strickland's remarks are transcribed below, and can be viewed here:

Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland: Thank you Chairman Rogers and Member Smith, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

This Committee is being asked to consider a $1.5 trillion dollar DOD budget request that funds not only weapons and system programs, but the people, leadership, readiness, and trust required to make them effective. When senior leaders are removed abruptly or merit-based promotions are disrupted without clear explanation, Congress does have the responsibility to understand the rational and operational consequences.

So, I'm going to focus on Secretary Hegseth. And to start, no one is disputing that senior officers serve at the pleasure of civilian leadership. The issue in front of this is whether the decision to remove General Randy George strengthened the Army or created an avoidable disruption during an active operational period.

General George, who also served as Commanding General at I CORP at JBLM, has been serving for four decades, including multiple command and operational leadership roles culminating as Chief of Staff of the Army. Responsible for readiness, force modernization, and the welfare of over a million soldiers and civilians. He was removed in the middle of an active conflict involving US operations against Iran when leadership continuity is most critical. Reporting indicates that General George's removal may have followed disagreements over Army personnel matters, including concerns regarding withheld promotions.

So, my question Secretary is this - what specific national security risk, mission risk, or leadership concern did General George present that justified removing him in the middle of a conflict? Or was he removed because he challenged some decisions being made?

Secretary of Pete Hegseth: As I stated earlier, out of respect to these officers, I don't discuss the nature of the removal, but I would ask an earnest question of you - where does General George fall in the operational chain of command?

Strickland: So, I'm asking you, why did you fire him? Don't change the subject, sir. Please answer my question. Please answer my question. National risk, mission risk, leadership concern? What did he present that justified removing him in the middle of a conflict?

Hegseth: Do you know where General George serves in the operational chain of command?

Strickland: So, I'm asking you my question one more time, sir. Don't try to flip it on me. Why was he removed? Was he a national security risk, mission risk, or leadership concern? Yes or no? You don't - okay, that's okay. Don't answer the question, it's all good. So, to be clear, your -

Mr. Chair I'm going to reclaim my time.

Chairman Mike Rogers: Gentlelady reclaims her time.

Strickland: Sir, sir, show some respect, okay?

Rogers: It's the gentlelady from Washington's time.

Strickland: Under DoDI 1320.04, the Secretary of Defense may withhold or disprove forwarding nomination after service recommendations in limited circumstances, including newly identified adverse information, pending investigations, reportable information, and questions regarding mental, physical, moral, or professional qualification, incomplete or noncompliant nomination packages, missing certifications, or the need for additional clarification from the military department.

Several colonels reportedly selected for Brigadier General were removed or withheld after Board Selection Certification. Which of these specific grounds apply to each withheld officer, and what objective evidence supported these decisions?

Hegseth: Congresswoman, that was just one of many boards across the services where we will perform similar reviews, and I anticipate other officers will be removed also.

Strickland: Okay, but what were the grounds for those?

Hegseth: Again, we don't talk about - out of respect for those officers - we don't talk about the nature of that, and we all serve at the pleasure of the President. We're solving for an institution that needs to be based on merit and professional execution, and there's been a lot of gender and demographic engineering that's been going on for reasons other than the focus of exactly what we should be doing on the battlefield, so whether it's that or -

Strickland: I didn't. I did not raise gender.

Hegseth: You - that's implied in every statement that everybody makes -

Strickland: I did not, I did not raise that.

Hegseth: Ultimately, as we review all these board, it has nothing to do with anything other than their performance on the battlefield or their performance in their career.

Strickland: And these people are thoroughly vetted, thoroughly researched, and I guess my question is - is this about loyalty to Trump or is it about what's good for the mission?

Hegseth: I understand what you're implying, but it's about the Constitution, and our military, and its ability to execute. And I'm going to make sure the President has the finest officers across the Force prepared to deliver.

Strickland: So, this Committee funds weapons, readiness, recruiting, professional development in leadership pipelines, but no amount of money can compensate for a Force that may lose trust in the fairness of advancement. And this is fairness. We believe in merit. We have always had a merit-based system. That's not the argument -

Hegseth: No, we have not. Not under the Biden Administration, we did not. It became social engineering, not merit, and we're fixing it quick.

Strickland: No, it didn't. No, it did not. It did not. And when we consider this budget request, we must ensure that taxpayer dollars are matched by sound judgement, credible leadership, and a personnel system worthy of those who serve. I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Rogers: Gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes the Gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.

###