By Danny R. Johnson – Political News Editor
SAN DIEGO – San Diego County News has learned from anonymous civilian and senior military commanders stationed in San Diego Naval bases and Camp Pendleton, that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, told recently retired Army Chief of Staff, General Randy George, to instruct soldiers to “disregard all Uniform Codes of Military Justice (UCMJ), and Geneva Convention Rules of Engagements, if and when troops are deployed in Iran.”
According to sources, General George declined to follow directives given by Hegseth. A Pentagon insider described a tense confrontation between the two, during which Hegseth informed General George that he must retire immediately, adding, “hopefully you might get your pension.”
San Diego County News contacted both the White House and the Pentagon to clarify the reported incidents but has not received a response from either party.
A senior naval officer currently assigned to Naval Base Point Loma informed San Diego County News, under the condition of anonymity, that he had spoken with a senior Army officer who was in proximity to Hegseth’s office at the time of the incident, and verified the incident took place. At a Pentagon briefing on March 2, 2026, War Secretary Hegseth used blunt language about how the United States would fight, saying there would be “no stupid rules of engagement,” “no politically correct wars,” and “no nation-building quagmire.”
The comments generated significant attention, as Rules of Engagement (ROE) are not merely informal guidelines or slogans; they constitute a structured control system connecting tactical decision-making to overarching strategy, legal frameworks, and escalation protocols. Human Rights Watch responded promptly, emphasizing that public disregard for ROE could be interpreted as diminishing legal safeguards designed to protect civilians and ensure military operations adhere to international law.
Former NATO Commander General Ben Hodges warned that disregarding rules of engagement could lead to actions contrary to U.S. military standards.
“We have never won a war – and never will – by killing everybody in sight. That’s the Russian approach; they can do a bunch of push-ups, they have no rules of engagement, they have no respect for civilian life, and they kill everything in front of them. Democracies fight differently. We want to produce women and men who are fit, disciplined and part of a team. I ask the U.S. Congress and military leaders to reject this dangerous approach.”
Since taking office as Secretary of War (formerly Secretary of Defense) in January 2025, Hegseth has authorized a sweeping series of firings and forced retirements targeting senior military leadership. These moves, often described by officials at the Pentagon as a “purge,” have removed more than a dozen top generals and admirals.
The most recent and high-profile actions occurred in April 2026:
· Gen. Randy George
: The Army Chief of Staff was ordered to step down and retire immediately on April 2, 2026, with more than a year remaining in his term.
· Gen. David Hodne
: The commanding general of Army Transformation and Training Command was fired on the same day as Gen. George.
· Maj. Gen. William Green Jr.
: The Army’s 26th Chief of Chaplains was also removed from his post on April 2, 2026.
Notable Earlier Firings and Ousters (2025–2026)
Hegseth’s efforts to overhaul the military command structure have also included the removal of the following senior officers:
· Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown Jr.
: Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fired in February 2025 shortly after the administration took office.
· Adm. Lisa Franchetti
: The Chief of Naval Operations was ousted in February 2025.
· Gen. David Allvin
: The Air Force Chief of Staff was forced to retire in August 2025 after being told the Secretary “wanted to go in another direction”.
· Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse
: The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency was fired in August 2025 following an assessment regarding strikes in Iran.
· Gen. Timothy Haugh
: Head of both U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency.
· Adm. Linda Fagan
: Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard.
· Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield
: The U.S. military representative to NATO’s military committee.
· Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short
: Senior military assistant, removed to install allies in key advisory roles.
· Top Military Lawyers:
This includes Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III (Army) and Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer (Air Force).
While some departures like those of Gen. Bryan Fenton (SOCOM) and Gen. Thomas Bussiere (Air Force) occurred around the same time, it remains unclear if they were directly authorized firings or standard retirements.
U.S. Rules of Engagement Explained
In U.S. doctrine, ROE start with standing baseline rules and then get tailored by commanders for a mission, geography, and threat picture. The Joint Staff’s Standing Rules of Engagement and Standing Rules for the Use of Force (CJCSI 3121.01B) are the backbone reference that describes how U.S. forces think about self-defense, hostile act, hostile intent, and the conditions for using force.
ROE also functions as a practical translation layer between the law of armed conflict and split-second decisions on the ground. They define who can be targeted, what “positive identification” and “hostile intent” mean in context, and what steps troops must take before escalating force. A plain-English training example is the Marine Corps lesson on law of war and ROE, which defines ROE as directives that set the “circumstances and limitations” under which U.S. forces initiate or continue combat engagement.
Why “No Stupid ROE” Might Be Misinterpreted
Hegseth’s phrasing is politically resonant for many, but it is also easy to misunderstand. No competent military runs “no ROE,” because U.S. forces remain bound by domestic orders and the law of armed conflict, including concepts such as distinction and proportionality. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual lays out those rules as operational obligations, not optional preferences.
Hegseth may be trying to signal ROE should not be over-lawyered, overly restrictive, or drafted in ways that create tactical paralysis. Even that narrower point can still be risky as public messaging, because the phrase “stupid ROE” implies the problem is the existence of constraints rather than the quality of the constraints.
Military commanders have traditionally depended on Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers for clear guidance on orders and rules of engagement; however, this channel of communication has also been intentionally compromised.
In February, Secretary of Defense Hegseth fired the Air Force’s and Army’s top JAGs. Last month, he commissioned his personal lawyer, Timothy C. Parlatore, as a Navy JAG. He is now reportedly paving the way to make major changes within the JAG Corps—including how military lawyers advise on the law of war and prosecute those who violate it. These moves raise concerns that the JAG Corps could be compromised by partisan appointments and bad faith interpretations of the law, with wide-ranging consequences for how the U.S. military conducts operations and disciplines personnel.
Multiple sources emphasize that, regardless of public statements by civilian leadership, U.S. military commanders and service members, remain legally obligated to follow lawful ROE and to refuse manifestly unlawful orders. Under U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions, “just following orders” is not a defense for war crimes or grave breaches of the law of armed conflicts.
