Under what conditions are presidents more likely to remove senior defense officials from office? Using a novel data set of all senior U.S. defense officials, both civilian and uniformed military from 1947 to 2021, this article explores whether anticipated support in Congress, partisan factors, or institutional protections for the military affect observed patterns of removal for defense officials. The results suggest that presidents are more likely to remove their own appointees (or their co-partisans’ appointees), but provide little evidence that presidents premise removal on anticipated partisan support for a replacement nominee in Congress. Moreover, the results suggest that military officials may have some insulation from politicization by strong forms of removal, though that protection may weaken an important aspect of civilian control of the military, the threat of punishment by removal, raising profound questions for how civilian control endures.
AltfeldM. F.MillerG. J. (1984). Sources of bureaucratic influence: Expertise and agenda control. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(4), 701–730.
4.
AvantD. (1993). The institutional sources of military doctrine: Hegemons in peripheral wars. International Studies Quarterly, 37(4), 409–430.
5.
BendorJ.MeirowitzA. (2004). Spatial models of delegation. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 293–310.
6.
BettsR. K. (1977). Soldiers, statesmen, and cold war crises (1991 Morningside Ed.). McGill Queen’s University Press.
7.
BonicaA.ChenJ.JohnsonT. (2015). Senate gate-keeping, presidential staffing of “inferior offices,” and the ideological composition of appointments to the public bureaucracy. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2015(10), 5–40.
8.
BradleyO. N.BlairC. (1983). A general’s life: An autobiography by general of the army Omar N. Bradley. Simon and Schuster.
9.
BrandsH. W. (2016). The general versus the president. Doubleday.
10.
BurkeJ. (2014). The institutional presidency. In NelsonM. (Ed.), The presidency and the political system (10th ed., pp. 349–373). SAGE.
DonnellyT. (2016). Testing the “Flournoy hypothesis”: Civil-military relations in the post-9/11 era. In SchakeK.MattisJ. (Eds.), Warriors and citizens: American views of our military (Vol. 1–Book, Section, pp. 189–218). Hoover Institution Press.
18.
DreaE. J.ColeR. H.PooleW. S.SchnabelJ. F.WatsonR. J.WebbW. J. (2013). History of the unified command plan: 1946-2012. Joint History Office, Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
19.
FeaverP. D. (2003). Armed servants: Agency oversight, and civil-military relations. Harvard University Press.
20.
FeaverP. D.GelpiC. (2002). Speak softly and carry a big stick? Veterans in the political elite and the American use of force. The American Political Science Review, 96(4), 779–793.
21.
FeaverP. D.GelpiC. (2005). Choosing your battles: American civil-military relations and the use of force (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
22.
FeaverP. D.KohnR. H. (Eds.). (2001). Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security. MIT Press.
23.
FirthD. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80, 27–38.
24.
FordhamB. O. (2001). Military interests and civilian politics: The influence of the civil-military “gap” on peacetime military policy. In FeaverP. D.KohnR. H. (Eds.), Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security (pp. 403–428). MIT Press.
GailmardS. (2014). Accountability and principal-agent models. In BovensM.GoodinR. E.SchillemansT. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 90–105). Oxford University Press.
27.
GailmardS.PattyJ. W. (2013). Learning while governing: Expertise and accountability in the executive branch. University of Chicago Press.
KinaneC. (2021). Control without confirmation: The politics of vacancies in presidential appointments. American Political Science Review, 115(2), 599–614.
41.
KosmidisI. (2017). R package BRGLM: Bias reduction in binomial-response generalized linear models (0.6.1) [Computer software]. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucakiko/index.html
42.
KrebsR. R. (2009). The citizen-soldier tradition in the United States. Armed Forces & Society, 36(1), 153–174.
43.
KrebsR. R.RalstonR. (2022). Patriotism or paychecks: Who believes what about why soldiers serve. Armed Forces & Society, 48(1), 25–48.
44.
LewisD. E. (2008). The politics of presidential appointments: Political control and bureaucratic performance. Princeton University Press.
45.
LewisD. E. (2011). Presidential appointments and personnel. Annual Review of Political Science, 2011, 47–66.
46.
LewisD. E. (2012). The contemporary presidency: The personnel process in the modern presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 42(3), 577–596.
47.
LewisD. E.WatermanR. W. (2013). The invisible presidential appointments: An examination of appointments to the department of labor, 2001-11. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 35–57.
48.
LocherJ. R. (1996, Autumn). Taking stock of Goldwater-Nichols. Joint Force Quarterly, 9–17.
49.
LocherJ. R. (2002). Victory on the Potomac. Texas A&M University Press.
50.
LowandeK.RogowskiJ. C. (2021). Presidential unilateral power. Annual Review of Political Science, 24, 21–43.
51.
McDonaldF. (1994). The American presidency. University Press of Kansas.
McMasterH. R. (1997). Dereliction of duty: Johnson, McNamara, the joint chiefs of staff, and the lies that led to Vietnam. Harper Collins.
55.
MillerG. J.WhitfordA. B. (2016). Above politics: Bureaucratic discretion and credible commitment. Cambridge University Press.
56.
MoeT. M. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. In ChubbJ. E.PetersonP. E. (Eds.), Can the government govern? (pp. 285–323). The Brookings Institute.
57.
MoeT. M. (1993). Presidents, institutions, and theory. In EdwardsG. C.KesselJ. H.RockmanB. A. (Eds.), Researching the presidency: Vital questions, new approaches (pp. 337–385). University of Pittsburgh Press.
58.
MoeT. M. (2005). Political control and power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 22(1), 1–29.
MoeT. M.HowellW. G. (1999). The presidential power of unilateral action. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15(1), 132–179.
61.
MoeT. M.LewisD. E. (2014). The presidency and the bureaucracy: The levers of presidential control. In NelsonM. (Ed.), The presidency and the political system (10th ed., pp. 374–405). SAGE.
62.
MotenM. (2014). Presidents and their generals: An American history of command in war. Harvard University Press.
63.
MuellerJ. E. (1973). War, presidents, and public opinion. John Wiley & Sons.
OwensM. T. (2011). Civil-military relations after 9/11: Renegotiating the civil-military bargain. Continuum.
68.
PikaJ. A.MalteseJ. A. (2010). The politics of the presidency (Rev. 7th ed.). CQ Press.
69.
PooleW. S. (2011). The joint chiefs of staff and national policy volume VIII, 1961-1964. Office of Joint History, Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
RodmanP. W. (2009). Presidential command. Vintage Books.
75.
RomanP. J.TarrD. W. (2001). Military professionalism and policymaking: Is there a civil-military gap at the top? If so, does it matter?. In FeaverP. D.KohnR. H. (Eds.), Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security (pp. 403–428). MIT Press.
76.
RudalevigeA. (2005). The new imperial presidency. University of Michigan Press.
77.
SchonbergerH. B. (1974). The general and the presidency: Douglas MacArthur and the election of 1948. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 57(3), 201–219.
WatermanR. (1989). Presidential influence and the administrative state. University of Tennessee Press.
88.
YooC. S.CalabresiS. G.ColangeloA. J. (2005). The unitary executive in the modern era, 1945-2004. Iowa Law Review, 90(2), 601–731.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
