"Pete Hegseth is treating our independent military lawyers like pawns in Trump’s cruel immigration agenda and it’s hurting our military readiness and morale,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote in an emailed statement to Defense One.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s amendment to the 2027 NDAA
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act now includes language, inserted by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, that directs the Government Accountability Office to review the Pentagon’s use of judge advocate generals to support Justice Department operations. Warren’s office said the amendment — which singles out assignments “including their use as immigration judges and special prosecutors, and its impact on morale and readiness” — had bipartisan support and would not be cut during Senate debate or in conference with the House.
What the GAO review is ordered to examine
The amendment orders a formal GAO review of how the Pentagon assigns uniformed military lawyers to civilian roles in support of the Justice Department. Warren’s office described the scope as examining both the deployment of JAGs as immigration judges and as special prosecutors, and the effect of those assignments on morale and military readiness. The senator’s statement did not describe how the Senate Armed Services Committee voted on the language, and SASC spokespeople did not return a request for comment to Defense One.
Recent changes inside the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s 18 months in office, the story reports, have featured “high-level firings, harsh criticisms, and wide-ranging reforms” aimed at the military’s legal corps. During that period Hegseth has fired the military’s top uniformed lawyers, reduced the civilian legal staff, and overseen the assignment of judge advocates to civilian roles — specifically, as immigration judges and as special U.S. attorneys in cities where National Guard surges were deployed. The report ties those personnel moves directly to the congressional interest reflected in Warren’s amendment.
Numbers, cases, and reported problems
Defense One reported that roughly 600 JAGs were assigned last year to work for the Justice Department as immigration judges. Earlier this year, it reported that dozens of uniformed lawyers were sent to work as special U.S. attorneys in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Memphis, Tennessee; and Washington, D.C., during National Guard deployments. The article cites military legal experts who told Defense One that those JAGs often lack the necessary experience for the civilian cases they have been asked to handle. One December incident is reported: an Army lawyer serving as a special U.S. attorney in Minnesota was held in contempt of court when an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee was released from custody without his identification paperwork.
Responses from former JAGs and critics
Steve Lepper, a former Air Force JAG and a member of a group of former judge advocates who have criticized the Pentagon’s use of military lawyers, praised Warren’s amendment. “I agree with Senator Warren. I agree with the rationale, and, quite frankly, anything that gets into the NDAA that requires the Pentagon to justify his use of judge advocates in those roles, I think, is a good thing,” Lepper said. He told Defense One he believes reassignment of JAGs to civilian positions has harmed morale among the military’s lawyers and raised due-process concerns for people facing immigration proceedings. “The rank-and-file judge advocates don't think this is a good idea,” Lepper said. “Americans are on the receiving end of the cases that are being prosecuted by judge advocates and immigrants are being subjected to, I believe, the lack of due process by having military officers serving as immigration judges sitting in judgment on their immigration cases.”
What this means for JAGs, the Pentagon, and the Justice Department
- Judge advocates: The GAO review will require the Pentagon to explain and justify the scale and nature of recent assignments to civilian DOJ roles, and the inquiry is framed around impacts on morale and readiness.
- The Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: The amendment places a formal oversight mechanism over personnel decisions that have included firing senior uniformed lawyers, reductions in civilian legal staff, and reassignment of JAGs to immigration and prosecutorial roles.
- The Justice Department and immigration courts: The use of military lawyers as immigration judges and special U.S. attorneys — including deployments to Minneapolis, Memphis, and Washington, D.C. — will be subject to public review, amid reported concerns about experience levels and case management errors.
- Congress: According to Warren’s office the provision had bipartisan backing and is expected to survive Senate and conference negotiation, though the committee did not provide details on the vote.
The next concrete step is the GAO review mandated by the NDAA language — a formal audit that will put the Pentagon’s recent legal personnel decisions on the record and assess the outcomes Warren’s office framed as effects on morale and readiness. Until that report is complete, the debate will continue to center on whether the reassignment of uniformed lawyers to civilian Justice Department roles is an appropriate use of military legal talent or a disruption to the military’s core legal functions.
