The decision by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to dismantle the Pentagon’s Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Office (CHMRO) is a reckless abandonment of America’s moral and legal obligations in warfare.
It is a move that not only weakens U.S. military credibility but also erodes fundamental human rights, increases civilian casualties, and accelerates the country’s descent into unaccountable military force. By eliminating oversight, reducing legal safeguards, and sidelining policies meant to minimize civilian harm, the Trump administration is sending a dangerous message: civilian lives are collateral, not a priority.
A Reversal of Progress: The Legacy of Civilian Protection in U.S. Warfare
The laws of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions, dictate that military operations must protect noncombatants. Historically, the U.S. military has struggled with this responsibility, but it has made strides in recognizing and mitigating civilian harm.
After the devastating civilian toll of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, the Pentagon established CHMRO and the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence to institutionalize safeguards against unnecessary deaths. These programs were designed not just to uphold legal and ethical standards, but also to ensure military effectiveness—because indiscriminate warfare breeds resentment, fuels insurgencies, and undermines U.S. strategic goals.
This progress was the result of years of investigations by journalists, human rights groups, and even the military’s own internal reviews, revealing systemic failures in identifying and preventing civilian casualties. The decision to dismantle these offices erases those hard-won gains and ensures that past mistakes will be repeated, with devastating consequences.
What This Means for Civilians in War Zones
Without these safeguards, civilians in areas where the U.S. operates—including Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen—will see an increase in indiscriminate bombings, drone strikes, and ground operations with little accountability. The Pentagon’s ability to track and respond to civilian harm will be significantly weakened, meaning that:
- Victims and their families will have no formal process for seeking redress or acknowledgment of wrongful deaths.
- U.S. forces will be less equipped to assess risks to civilians before launching airstrikes.
- International watchdogs will have even less transparency into U.S. military operations.
This policy change will also damage relationships with allies who depend on the U.S. to uphold international humanitarian law. Countries that host U.S. forces will face increased domestic backlash when civilian casualties spike, further destabilizing regions already struggling with conflict.
A Legal and Human Rights Disaster
Hegseth’s move not only violates international law but also undermines America’s constitutional commitments to due process and human rights. The Geneva Conventions explicitly require militaries to take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm. The U.S. has long prided itself on adherence to these principles, distinguishing itself from adversaries who engage in indiscriminate warfare.
By eliminating the very mechanisms that ensure compliance with these laws, the administration is willfully violating both U.S. and international legal norms. This puts American soldiers and officials at risk of future prosecution under international human rights courts and could lead to legal challenges from victims’ families.
Furthermore, the removal of military legal advisors—known as Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs)—from key decision-making roles signals an intentional effort to limit legal oversight. When legal professionals are sidelined, military decisions become less about strategy and more about unchecked force, a recipe for war crimes and global condemnation.
A Gift to America’s Adversaries
One of the most dangerous outcomes of this decision is how it plays into the hands of America’s adversaries. U.S. leaders have long condemned authoritarian regimes for their disregard of civilian life—whether it be Russia’s bombardment of Ukrainian cities or China’s oppression in Xinjiang. By abandoning civilian harm protections, the U.S. forfeits any moral high ground in condemning such actions.
Additionally, terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Shabaab thrive on civilian grievances. Each mistaken strike, each unacknowledged death, fuels anti-American sentiment and serves as a recruitment tool for extremist groups. The fewer safeguards the U.S. puts in place, the easier it becomes for insurgents to justify their own brutal tactics.
Moral Injury: The Toll on U.S. Service Members
Beyond the impact on civilians, removing these protections also harms the very soldiers and pilots tasked with carrying out U.S. military operations. Studies have shown that service members suffer profound moral injury when they witness or are complicit in acts that violate their ethical beliefs. The dismantling of accountability mechanisms increases the likelihood that troops will be ordered to carry out missions that violate their moral compass, leading to long-term psychological trauma and a breakdown in military morale.
As former Air Force Brigadier General Matt Isler put it, “Reducing risks of civilian harm focuses combat effects on the enemy, accelerates achievement of campaign objectives, preserves combat power, and protects warfighters.” The removal of these programs does the opposite—endangering not just civilians, but American service members as well.
A Slippery Slope Toward Unchecked Warfare
Hegseth’s decision is not happening in isolation. It comes alongside Trump’s relaxation of counterterrorism strike rules, the rollback of drone warfare restrictions, and broader efforts to remove legal oversight from military operations. Together, these changes represent a shift toward a more reckless, unregulated form of warfare where civilian lives are expendable and accountability is nonexistent.
The dismantling of civilian harm protections sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. If these programs can be erased so easily, what stops a future president from eliminating other safeguards—like the War Powers Act or congressional oversight of military operations? Once these protections are gone, restoring them will be nearly impossible.
The Call for Resistance
The rollback of these policies is not just a matter of military strategy—it is a test of America’s commitment to the values it claims to uphold. If the administration truly supports the troops, it must listen to military leaders who understand that protecting civilians is not a bureaucratic burden but a necessity for strategic success.
Congress must act immediately to pass legislation ensuring that civilian harm mitigation remains a requirement in all U.S. military operations. Allies must push back against these changes, refusing to cooperate in missions that fail to uphold international law. The American public must recognize that this is not just a foreign policy issue—it is a moral and legal crisis that threatens the integrity of the U.S. military and the nation’s standing in the world.
History will judge this moment. Either the U.S. will recommit to the principles that have long set it apart, or it will descend into a model of warfare where civilians are nothing more than collateral damage. The choice is clear, and the time to act is now.