Update: Why Is Secretary Hegseth Calling His Generals and Admirals to Washington?

This Critical Questions updates and expands on a commentary published on September 25, 2025.

On September 30, hundreds of generals and admirals will descend on Quantico, Virginia, for a meeting with the secretary of defense, with the president as a late addition. The meeting’s large size, short notice, and lack of an agenda are unprecedented. Indeed, the lack of an agenda has sparked a wide range of rumors, from a purge of senior officers to preparations for war. This Critical Questions lays out what is known publicly about the meeting, what can be inferred, and what this might mean for the military and national security.

Q1: What is the event?

A1: On September 25, the Washington Post reported that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had called an in-person meeting of up to 800 flag and general officers (FO/GOs, or officers of one to four stars). This event will take place on Tuesday, September 30, at Marine Corps Base Quantico, located just south of Washington, D.C. The Department of Defense (DOD) has confirmed such a meeting.

President Trump has announced that he will also attend. That makes sense since the commander-in-chief should take advantage of the opportunity to meet with his senior military commanders. On the other hand, it’s unclear why this decision was made two days before the event and not far in advance.

Q2: Is this meeting unprecedented?

A2: Yes, despite Vice President Vance’s downplaying of it: “It’s actually not unusual at all and I think it’s odd that you’ve made it into such a big story.” It is true that meetings of general officers for specific purposes are not unusual. For example, the 11 four-star combatant commanders come to Washington twice a year to meet with the secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the president. Each service has an annual meeting of its flag and general officers and often its senior civilians as well. However, the reported scale, short timeline, and lack of a clear agenda are unprecedented.

Q3: Was this meeting called abruptly?

A3: Yes and no. It seems abrupt because its existence became public knowledge only five days before the scheduled meeting. However, the planning has apparently been going on in classified spaces for some time. Still, given that all these senior officers are tightly scheduled weeks and months in advance, the meeting has disrupted many plans and events. Senior officers who had planned to lead a field exercise, visit the troops, speak at conferences, or engage with allies and partners have had to bow out and find substitutes. For this reason, large FO/GO meetings are typically scheduled many months or even years in advance.

Q4: Why did Secretary Hegseth call this meeting?

A4: There is tremendous uncertainty here. The DOD has said only that “The Secretary of War will be addressing his senior military leaders early next week.” That information vacuum extends to the senior officers themselves and has led to much speculation, some quite dark. We can start with what this meeting is NOT about.

• The beginning of a war. For a war, the DOD would not bring in all the generals and admirals, just those in operational units in the relevant theaters. Furthermore, there are no troop movements or preparations that would indicate any large-scale military operations.
• A purge of senior officers. That has been a concern because Secretary Hegseth has fired many FO/GOs, often abruptly and without explanation. However, the officers are bringing their senior enlisted advisers. These advisers have not been fired with their general officers in the past, so there would be no point in having them attend if the purpose were to fire senior officers. It would also be unseemly, even for the current leadership, to fire commanders in front of their enlisted personnel. Finally, a purge would likely exclude from attendance any officers to be fired, and there are no reports of any officers being excluded.
• The pending government shutdown. A shutdown seems almost inevitable, but the DOD’s financial and administrative organizations are conducting the preparations. There is no need to involve the commanders directly.
• Showing off new equipment. Despite President Trump’s statement that the senior officers would be“touring equipment sites” and “talking about the newest weapons,” that will not be the central purpose of the event. Taking hundreds of general officers on tour would be a security nightmare and unnecessary since the information can be conveyed remotely. However, there will certainly be discussion of threats to U.S. national security. To be fair to the president, this is Secretary Hegseth’s meeting, and the president may have just been speculating.

If the meeting is not about these topics, then what is it about? The Washington Post reported that Hegseth will emphasize standards and a warrior ethos. That message will resonate with the officers, all combat veterans with decades of service, who have dedicated their entire adult lives to upholding these values. How they will receive such a lecture from a former National Guard major is unclear. Hegseth could easily alienate his audience if he talks down to them.

This lecture may fade into an exhortation that is implied in much of Hegseth’s guidance to the department —get on board or get out. Hegseth is clearly disturbed that members of the department are dissenting from his guidance. Thus, he has restricted and controlled outside appearances by senior officers, clamped down on the release of any information, both classified or unclassified, and reportedly administered polygraph tests on Pentagon employees. This will be a very uncomfortable conversation for the senior officers because it squeezes them between their oath to the Constitution and their duty to obey the commander-in-chief and his designated subordinates.

The following exchange has heightened these concerns. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army Europe, posted: “July 1935 German generals were called to a surprise assembly in Berlin and informed that their previous oath to the Weimar constitution was void and that they would be required to swear a personal oath to the Führer. Most generals took the new oath to keep their positions.” Secretary Hegseth responded ambiguously: “Cool story, General.” Did he mean to imply possible agreement with the German dictator, was he trolling his opponents, or was it just an interesting story?

There will be no change in the officers’ oaths; that is prescribed by law and based on the president’s oath in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1). However, Hegseth could lean on them to support the president and his political program more explicitly. Senior officers routinely discuss external threats like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and global terrorism. They are uncomfortable getting into domestic threats like designating antifa and cartels as terrorists. They have obeyed the lawful orders to move troops to cities, but don’t want to get drawn into the partisan politics of the policy behind those deployments. Their nightmare is being forced to endorse these domestic policies in public statements or testimony to Congress and to denounce the political opposition.

President Trump described the meeting’s agenda in routine terms, according to reports from the Washington Post: “Talking about how well we’re doing militarily, talking about being in great shape, talking about a lot of good, positive things.” Those are appropriate topics for the commander-in-chief to discuss with his senior military officers. However, the officers will be concerned about the president drifting into political and partisan topics. President Trump likes using the military as a backdrop for partisan activities. His speeches to the troops have the character of a campaign rally.

In addition to guidance and overview from the commander-in-chief and the secretary, reports indicate that the secretary or his senior staff will cover two more topics.

One is a discussion of the new National Defense Strategy, which the secretary is reportedly about to publish. It has been widely reported that this strategy will emphasize homeland security, and Hegseth may want to express that directly to his commanders. It would be a substantial change from recent strategies, which focused on China and Russia.

Another possible topic is organizational changes. For example, there have been rumors of combining European Command and Africa Command, as well as Southern Command and Northern Command. Hegseth has directed a large reduction in FO/GOs, and the best way to accomplish that is by eliminating the organizations that they lead. There is also a cascading effect, since a reduction in the seniority of the commander reduces the seniority of all staff subordinates.

Q5: Will this meeting really involve 800 flag and general officers?

A5: The DOD has not specified a number, but the total will not be 800, the number suggested in the original Washington Post article. That would essentially be all 838 active duty officers (as of June 2025). There are no reports that any of the 600 reserve and National Guard FO/GOs will attend. Later reporting clarified that only GO/FOs in “command positions” will attend. Officers on staffs will be exempt. There are many such officers, which would bring the number substantially below 800. A RAND report calculated 323 “commanders” and another 240 “directors.” Scattered reports indicate that infrastructure commands, such as bases and acquisition, training, and R&D organizations, are included, not just field commands. Regardless of where the number settles, the size of the meeting will be unprecedented.

Q6: Is bringing all these FO/GOs together risky?

A6: Yes, there are risks to both the meeting itself and to military command and control worldwide, but these should not be exaggerated. The United States has extensive experience conducting secure meetings for senior officials and managing FO/GO absences.

That experience will be needed because security at Quantico will be a nightmare. Such a large gathering of military leadership will be a target for terrorists and protesters. Adding the president increases the security challenge. The base is large, relatively open, and with thousands of inhabitants and workers. The Marines will likely cordon off a section of the base for the meeting. Marine Corps University, where the conference will reportedly take place, occupies a part of the base that would be relatively easy to isolate and has the requisite conference facilities. The FBI Academy is also located on the base and has special security measures in place; it might also be used for support activities.

Then there are the practical questions about where to lodge all these senior officers. The most secure approach would be to put them in a barracks on the base, but that’s not appropriate. On the other hand, transporting them around Northern Virginia to suitable facilities, perhaps on their service bases, will involve hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles every morning and evening.

To accommodate all this activity, the base may have to suspend its regular training and education activities for a day or two. However, so far (Monday morning), the base has not posted any special restrictions or guidance. With the president coming, the Secret Service will take over security from the Marine Corps. So the base, in effect, will have a new boss 48 hours before the event. Be glad you are not Colonel Jenny Colegate, the base commander who will be in charge of administration, logistics, and base security.

Gaps in command worldwide are risky. U.S. forces globally will not be leaderless; acting commanders will still be in place. However, the large number of absentees might open a vulnerability. Acting commanders often hesitate to make major decisions, feeling that those are reserved for the actual commander. There may be some adversary worldwide that decides to take advantage of the opportunity.

Q7: Why is this meeting being held in person?

A7: It is not clear why this could not have been a classified video teleconferencing meeting rather than bringing everyone physically to Washington. President Trump likes in-person meetings because he wants to engage directly with other leaders, a habit from his days as a New York real estate developer. Secretary Hegseth has not shown the same inclination. The Washington Post reports that “It’s meant to be an eyeball-to-eyeball kind of conversation.” As secretary, Hegseth can demand the officers’ physical presence.

Q8: Will the visiting officers be stuck in town if the government shuts down the next day, as is expected?

A8: No, but a government shutdown would make their departure more difficult. Military personnel are exempt from the shutdown by law. Thus, the officers themselves, any support staff, and all the Marines at Quantico will still be at work. The civilian transportation world—airlines and Uber—will still be operating. However, government civilians supporting the effort at Quantico might not be available, making security, base transportation, and administration more difficult.

Q9: Will this be expensive?

A9: Some Democrats in Congress have raised this concern, but the answer depends on the viewer’s perspective. On the one hand, the cost is small, at least by the standards of a trillion-dollar defense budget. On the other hand, the cost is high if you don’t believe the event is worthwhile.

The DOD has not released any cost information. One calculation put the cost at $3.4 million, but that may be low. My rough estimate would be higher, $6 million, calculated as follows: If there are 1,000 visitors (400 senior officers and 600 support personnel), and each costs $4,000 for air travel, ground transportation, and lodging, then the total travel cost would be $4 million. Extra base costs for overtime, food, and security might be another $2 million, bringing the total to $6 million. That does not include opportunity costs for diverting DOD assets from other activities. There might be lost training at Quantico for the hundreds of military personnel at the base’s schools, military aircraft might be diverted to ferrying VIPs, and events might be canceled because of the senior officers’ absence.

The air of mystery about this meeting will not last much longer. With so many people attending, details about what is said will quickly emerge. That will set off another round of commentary about whether the secretary’s comments were appropriate and what they might mean for the future of civil-military relations. For good or bad, this meeting will be a major piece of Hegseth’s legacy.

Mark F. Cancian (Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, ret.) is a senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.