Pentagon Accused of Blocking Promotions
PHOTO CAPTION: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sits among senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, on September 30, 2025. A November 9, 2026, investigation by MS NOW alleges that Hegseth's office used internet searches and unofficial screening criteria to withhold promotions from officers previously selected by military promotion boards. The Pentagon maintains that its promotion decisions are merit-based. (Associated Press file photo.)
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's office allegedly blocked the promotions of senior military officers who had already been selected for advancement, using internet searches to identify past involvement in diversity programs, COVID-19 vaccination efforts and other activities associated with previous Pentagon leadership.
A November 9 investigation by MS NOW describes an unofficial review process in which staff reportedly printed online search results, assembled separate paper files and used additional screening criteria outside the military's established promotion boards.
At least 12 officers reportedly had their promotions withheld.
Some had served in combat, commanded major military units or accumulated decades of experience before being recommended for promotion.
The Pentagon disputes suggestions that its promotion decisions are politically motivated, maintaining that senior leaders are selected based on merit and their ability to support military operations.
The allegations have not been established as unlawful through a court ruling or official investigation.
Officers Had Already Passed Promotion Boards
Military promotions to senior ranks typically involve an extensive review of an officer's service record, evaluations, professional qualifications and leadership experience.
Selection boards recommend officers for advancement, but their recommendations do not automatically guarantee promotion. Senior military appointments require additional executive review, and general and flag officer appointments generally involve presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.
According to MS NOW, the disputed screening took place after officers had already been recommended for promotion through the established selection process.
A senior military official familiar with general and flag officer assignments described an additional review conducted within Hegseth's office.
The official alleged that staff examined officers' online histories for activities that senior Pentagon leadership considered objectionable.
Some officers were then removed from consideration or had their promotions withheld, according to the investigation.
Two officers who were affected reportedly confirmed that Pentagon officials had informed them by telephone that their promotions were being held.
The officers said they were not provided an opportunity to respond to the information being used against them.
Online Searches Flagged Diversity Events and Vaccine Programs
The investigation identified several categories of information allegedly used during the additional screening.
According to the reporting, officers could be flagged for participating in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, implementing COVID-19 vaccination requirements, involvement in the Afghanistan evacuation or connections to retired Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Examples reportedly included participation in Pride Month events, public discussions of diversity in military leadership and support for vaccination programs.
Some online records showed officers attending events organized or authorized by the military itself.
One example involved the creation of a diversity committee aboard the USS Kearsarge.
Others included a Hispanic Heritage Month event aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an International Women's Day panel associated with U.S. Africa Command and a photograph connected to COVID-19 vaccination aboard the USS Carl Vinson.
These activities were reportedly highlighted during the review.
The investigation does not establish that every flagged activity automatically resulted in a withheld promotion, or that each affected officer was rejected for the same reason.
Separate Paper Files Allegedly Kept From Officers
One of the most unusual allegations involves how the additional screening was documented.
According to the senior official interviewed by MS NOW, Hegseth's executive office maintained paper files containing results from internet searches.
Those materials were allegedly kept separate from the official promotion board records.
The officers under consideration could not access the additional files, according to the investigation.
Instructions about the screening criteria were reportedly communicated by telephone rather than through written guidance.
That distinction has raised concerns about transparency and whether officers were given adequate notice of information being considered in decisions affecting their careers.
The reporting has not established whether the paper files violated a particular Pentagon records requirement, and the complete files have not been made publicly available.
However, the allegations introduce questions about whether official promotion procedures were followed and whether officers had a meaningful opportunity to challenge potentially inaccurate or misleading information.
Some Officers Had Extensive Combat and Command Experience
The affected officers were not described as inexperienced personnel seeking their first leadership positions.
According to MS NOW, the group included officers with substantial operational backgrounds, including experience commanding carrier strike groups, flying military aircraft and serving in combat-related assignments.
Some reportedly held advanced degrees from institutions including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Johns Hopkins University.
Others had served during operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the campaign against ISIS.
The senior official said the additional vetting disproportionately affected women and officers from racial minority groups.
That assertion is based on the investigation's sources and has not been established through an independently published, comprehensive analysis of all promotion decisions.
The Pentagon has not publicly released a complete accounting of the officers involved or the reasons individual promotions were withheld.
Career Consequences Could Be Significant
For senior military officers, a delayed or withdrawn promotion can carry consequences extending well beyond the loss of a higher rank.
Advancement to general or admiral positions often determines whether officers can continue serving in senior command assignments.
Under federal law, promotion lists for certain senior appointments are subject to an 18-month eligibility period, with provisions governing extensions and removal from the list.
Officers who are not promoted may eventually face retirement or other career limitations, depending on their status and the applicable rules.
The investigation reported that some affected officers could be forced to retire if they do not advance.
The exact financial and professional consequences for each officer have not been publicly documented.
The larger issue is whether service records, operational experience and favorable promotion-board recommendations were outweighed by activities that had previously been part of official military programs.
Could the Additional Screening Violate Military Law?
Military personnel law permits senior officials to review and, in specified circumstances, delay or remove officers from promotion consideration.
But those authorities are not unlimited.
Title 10 of the U.S. Code establishes procedures governing military officer appointments and promotions.
Section 624 includes requirements for written notice and an opportunity to respond in covered cases involving delayed appointments.
Section 629 addresses removal from promotion lists and reserves important removal authority to the president, with certain powers delegated to the defense secretary for lower ranks.
That distinction is particularly relevant because the MS NOW investigation involves senior officers being considered for general and flag ranks.
Military attorney Cody Harnish, a former Army judge advocate, questioned whether the reported process complied with federal law.
However, determining whether any specific action was unlawful would require examining the officers' promotion status, which official exercised the authority, the grounds for the decision and the procedures actually followed.
An officer recommended by a promotion board is not necessarily in the same legal position as an officer already placed on a presidentially approved promotion list.
The public reporting does not establish those distinctions for every affected individual.
Pentagon Says Promotions Are Merit-Based
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell defended Hegseth's approach to senior military leadership.
In a statement provided to The Independent, Parnell said the secretary is focused on selecting leaders committed to combat effectiveness and the administration's national defense strategy.
He said military officers serve under the authority of the president and defense secretary and that the department remains committed to advancement based on qualifications and merit.
The Pentagon has made similar arguments while implementing broader leadership changes, including efforts to reduce the number of senior officers and emphasize operational readiness.
Supporters of those changes argue that civilian defense leaders have a legitimate role in determining which officers are suited to lead the military.
Critics of the alleged screening process argue that political or ideological considerations should not replace established promotion standards, particularly when officers were carrying out policies previously required by military leadership.
The Pentagon has not publicly addressed every specific allegation about the separate paper files or the individual withheld promotions.
What Happens Next?
The investigation leaves several major questions unresolved.
It remains unclear exactly how many officers were affected, whether all the disputed decisions were final and whether any were subsequently reversed.
The complete screening records have not been publicly released.
It is also unknown whether Congress, the Pentagon inspector general or another oversight body will formally examine the allegations.
The federal government has authority to determine who serves in its most senior military positions. But the rules governing that authority also establish procedures intended to protect the integrity of promotion decisions.
For officers who have spent decades building their careers, the distinction is significant.
The dispute centers on whether senior promotion decisions were based on properly evaluated military qualifications or whether unofficial online screening criteria introduced an additional process that officers could neither see nor challenge.
For now, the allegations remain contested, and the Pentagon continues to defend its commitment to merit-based promotions.
(Source: OAF Nation)
