Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dod Constitutional Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts warn JAG purge, quick‑reaction‑force memo, and strikes risk legal overreach; committee seeks answers from Adjutant General
Summary
Retired Colonel Karen Fair and Professor Daniel Maurer told the committee that recent DoD actions — removal of senior JAG officers, Oct. 8 memo ordering a 350‑person quick reaction force, and reported strikes on vessels — raise constitutional and legal concerns including potential violations of Posse Comitatus and international law; the committee has sent a letter to the Adjutant General for clarity.
Two outside experts told the Joint Armed Services Committee on Nov. 12 that developments inside the Department of Defense and the Pentagon’s recent guidance risk politicizing the military and exceed legal limits.
Karen Fair, a retired colonel who serves as general counsel and vice president at a private legal practice, said actions taken just after Pete Hegseth’s nomination as secretary of defense included removal of senior military lawyers. "He got rid of all of the head lawyers of the military," Fair said, and she described the removals as a threat to the independence of military legal advice.
Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Daniel Maurer, an associate professor of law, told the committee he had two principal concerns: domestic National Guard deployments ordered over governors' objections and recent strikes on vessels involved in narcotics trafficking. He and Fair both criticized an Oct. 8 memo from Major General Ronald Burkett, director of operations for the National Guard Bureau, that the committee discussed as setting a 350‑person quick reaction force that should be trained to respond to civil unrest with shields, batons, tasers and pepper spray. Maurer said the memo’s framing raised questions about Posse Comitatus and whether the Insurrection Act has been invoked; he called the memo and similar actions "a very novel use of the National Guard in the history of our country."
Maurer and Fair argued the legal constraints for using military forces in law enforcement roles are significant: Title 10 and the Posse Comitatus Act generally bar domestic law‑enforcement duties by the armed forces, and the Insurrection Act is the statutory trigger that can permit certain exceptions. Maurer said prior legal authorities used to justify overseas strikes (for example, references to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force) do not provide a clear congressional authorization to use lethal strikes against narcotics traffickers in the Caribbean or Eastern Pacific and that such strikes risk violating international humanitarian law.
Committee members pressed for documentation and verification. Chair Gray observed press accounts and cited figures — "19 strikes on boats" and "76 killed" — and sought clarification; the presenters and other members emphasized those numbers require outside verification and legal analysis. The committee said it had reached out to the adjutant general; Chair Gray and Senator Kawasaki also sent a letter to General Sachs expressing concern about rapid QRF formation and potential use in Alaska.
Both presenters urged the legislature to use its channels — resolutions, direct communications with the governor and federal delegation, and statutory clarification — to preserve civilian control and the rule of law. Colonel Fair stated publicly that she is a Republican and said she voted for President Trump to make clear her testimony was not purely partisan advocacy.
The committee took no formal enforcement action but directed staff to continue inquiry and follow up with the Adjutant General to clarify the memo’s intent and readiness timelines.
