Defense Secretary Overrules Commanders to Cut Civilian Protection Program Despite Warnings

Despite warnings from top military leaders, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has significantly reduced the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response program, a move that has drawn criticism following high civilian casualties in recent U.S. military operations.

Shortly after taking office last year, Hegseth conducted a poll among senior commanders to gauge their support for cutting the CHMR program, which aims to minimize harm to civilians during military operations. The program was established in response to heavy civilian tolls seen in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decades.

To Hegseth's surprise, every commander polled rejected his proposal to cut back on the program. Nine commanders opted to preserve as much of the CHMR effort as possible by cutting 65% of staff but keeping it operational. Two commands overseeing nuclear and cyber threats outright refused all proposed cuts, insisting on maintaining the full program.

However, despite this overwhelming support from top brass, Hegseth proceeded with his original plan. He drastically reduced the program's funding and staffing levels, leaving only a handful of personnel to carry out its mission. This decision came as the U.S. was launching new military campaigns in Somalia, Yemen, and Iran, leading to significant civilian casualties.

The impact of these decisions became starkly apparent when U.S. missile strikes killed hundreds of civilians in Iran and Yemen last year, drawing international condemnation and scrutiny from Congress. These incidents have prompted a reconsideration of the CHMR program's importance and potential revival under current conditions.

Hegseth’s push to dismantle the civilian protection measures was part of his broader vision for a more aggressive military posture, characterized by what he described as "maximum lethality" without constraints. This approach has faced opposition from those who argue that such actions undermine U.S. moral authority and strategic interests abroad.

The reversal in stance regarding CHMR could signal a shift in the Pentagon's priorities under increasing pressure to address humanitarian concerns while maintaining operational effectiveness. Current discussions around restoring elements of the program reflect growing recognition among military leaders and policymakers of its critical role in mitigating civilian casualties during conflicts.

Despite these developments, officials involved in advocating for the program’s preservation have remained anonymous due to fears of retaliation from the Trump administration. The Pentagon declined to comment on the specifics of the poll or potential changes to the CHMR initiative when contacted by ProPublica.

This situation underscores broader tensions within the military and defense establishment over balancing operational requirements with ethical considerations, particularly in an era marked by rapid technological advancements in warfare that complicate civilian protection efforts.