The U.S. military and political establishment has faced a period of extraordinary tension and scrutiny this December, as high-profile leadership changes, controversial military operations, and heated political disputes have collided in a way that few could have anticipated. With the retirement of Admiral Alvin Holsey from U.S. Southern Command and the public pushback against President Donald Trump’s attempts to use the military for domestic political purposes, the nation’s civil-military balance is under the microscope.
Admiral Alvin Holsey’s early retirement on December 13, 2025, came as a surprise to many in Washington and beyond. Typically, the post of commander overseeing U.S. military operations in Latin America is a three- to four-year assignment. Holsey, a Navy veteran with 37 years of service, stepped down after just one year, passing the baton to Air Force Lt. Gen. Evan Pettus during a subdued ceremony at the U.S. Southern Command headquarters near Miami. The event, notably absent of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and attended mostly by Southern Command staff, reflected the uncertain mood gripping the military’s upper ranks.
Holsey, in his farewell remarks, avoided mention of the swirling controversies. Instead, he focused on the enduring values of partnership and democratic principle that have long defined U.S. engagement in Latin America. "To be a trusted partner, we must be credible, present and engaged," Holsey said, according to The Dispatch. His words, though diplomatic, resonated with the moment’s gravity.
Holsey’s departure came against the backdrop of mounting congressional scrutiny over the Trump administration’s aggressive campaign against suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Since the campaign began, at least 87 people have been killed in 22 known strikes against alleged drug boats, operations supported by a formidable array of U.S. warships, attack helicopters, thousands of troops, and the deployment of the nation’s most advanced aircraft carrier. The administration’s legal justification for these strikes—designating several Latin American drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and declaring armed conflict with them—draws on arguments formulated after the September 11 attacks. This approach marks a dramatic shift from the traditional practice of arresting suspects at sea and bringing them to the U.S. for prosecution.
The campaign’s reach has extended beyond drug interdiction. On December 11, U.S. forces seized a sanctioned oil tanker accused of smuggling illicit crude, a move that escalated pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who has already been charged with narcoterrorism in the United States. The sale of oil on global markets is vital to Maduro’s hold on power, and the Trump administration’s actions have been interpreted by Maduro and others as an attempt to force him from office.
Yet, the legality and morality of these operations have come under fire from multiple fronts. Experts in the laws of war, human rights advocates, and even some of Trump’s congressional allies have questioned whether the administration’s tactics cross legal and ethical boundaries. A particularly troubling incident involved a strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of their boat, raising questions about proportionality and the rules of engagement.
Congress has responded with a series of classified briefings and hearings. Holsey himself briefed key lawmakers via secure video call earlier in December, but, as Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, noted, "there are still many questions to be answered." Reed reported that Holsey cited personal reasons for his retirement and did not elaborate further, leaving observers to speculate about the pressures facing senior military leaders.
General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, praised Holsey’s leadership style during the retirement ceremony, describing him as a "stoic" and "quiet professional" who always prioritized the collective over the individual. "It’s never been about you, it’s been about people, it’s been about others," Caine said. "You’ve never said ‘I’ in all the conversations we’ve had. You’ve always said ‘we.’ … The impact you’ve had will last for a long time." The ceremony concluded with a soulful rendition of "Midnight Train to Georgia," a nod to Holsey’s roots in Fort Valley, Georgia, where his family’s tradition of military service runs deep.
Holsey’s successor, Lt. Gen. Evan Pettus, is no stranger to high-stakes operations. A fighter jet pilot with combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, Pettus had served as Holsey’s top deputy since late 2024. Nevertheless, the duration of his tenure remains uncertain, as President Trump has yet to nominate a permanent replacement, a decision that will require Senate confirmation.
Meanwhile, the civil-military divide has been further exposed by President Trump’s recent attempts to label Democratic military veterans as "traitors" and subject them to military trials. This move has met with rare and forceful opposition from both Republican Party leadership and active-duty military officials. On December 11, Senator Roger Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, dismissed a Navy investigation targeting Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, calling it "nothing there" and making clear that punishing elected officials for political speech is inappropriate. Wicker’s stance, reported by CNN and other outlets, signaled a refusal to allow the military to become a tool for political retribution.
The controversy had been set in motion in late November, when six Democratic lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds—including Senators Kelly and Elise Slotkin—released a video expressing alarm over Trump’s threats to mobilize the military against so-called "internal enemies" such as radical leftists. In the video, they urged active-duty personnel to "uphold the Constitution and have the duty to refuse illegal orders."
At the same Senate hearing, General Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command, directly contradicted President Trump’s narrative, stating, "I have no indication of any internal enemies." Guillot’s testimony was a pointed rebuke to Trump’s repeated labeling of protestors and Democratic hardliners as the "enemy within," and his threats to deploy troops against them. When pressed by Senator Jack Reed on how he would respond to an illegal order, Guillot replied, "If an order is received, I will first consult with staff judge advocates and legal advisors to assess its legality. If it is found not legal, I will not execute the order." He emphasized that the military’s loyalty lies with the U.S. Constitution, not with the president as an individual, underscoring the importance of institutional legal review in filtering out illegal directives.
Some analysts have interpreted Guillot’s public affirmation of the "duty to refuse illegal orders" as a clear warning to the White House. As the president’s more extreme directives meet resistance not just from the opposition, but from within his own party and the military’s highest ranks, Trump’s ability to command unquestioned obedience appears to be diminishing.
The events of December 2025 have laid bare the complexities and strains of American civil-military relations. With the military’s top commanders and the Senate’s leadership pushing back against the politicization of the armed forces, the fundamental principles of democratic governance and the rule of law are being put to the test in real time. The outcome of these struggles will shape not only the future of U.S. military policy but also the nation’s broader commitment to constitutional order and civilian oversight.