The incoming chair of the Congressional Black Caucus says Democrats could subpoena Pentagon officials to investigate allegations of racial and gender discrimination in military promotions under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth if they regain control of the House in November.
The warning from Rep. Troy Carter (D-Louisiana) puts the considerable political weight of the influential caucus behind calls for an aggressive investigation as Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee prepare their potential oversight agenda.
Hegseth’s personnel decisions are among the Democratic priorities, but they are just part of a crowded oversight agenda, and lawmakers have yet to decide how any probe would proceed. Carter’s push could help determine how prominently the issue figures into those plans.
“We will have subpoena power, and he can test it if he wants to,” Carter said of Hegseth. “This is a new and improved Democratic Party, and we enforce the rules. The time to play nice is far spent.”
Trending
“You cannot just summarily remove people who’ve done nothing wrong, who have committed to America and our safety, and then summarily remove them because you don’t like their gender, or you don’t like the color of their skin,” Carter said.
At the center of the dispute is Hegseth’s reported removal of officers — a disproportionate number of whom were women and people of color — from promotion lists assembled through the military’s established selection process. The decisions have raised concerns among lawmakers and military advocates that political or ideological considerations are displacing professional qualifications in determining who advances to the military’s highest ranks.
Hegseth removed at least 45 senior officers from promotion lists across the armed services, more than half of whom were women or Black officers, according to an investigation The New York Times published in August. Hegseth’s aides also reportedly had established a vetting process that examined officers’ public statements, photographs, speeches and past participation in diversity initiatives.
Just eight of the 201 officers nominated for promotion to general or admiral during the first seven months of 2026 were women — the lowest share in at least 25 years.
The promotion decisions are part of a broader shake-up of military personnel policies and senior military firings under President Donald Trump. He fired Gen. CQ Brown, the second Black chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to serve as chief of naval operations; and Adm. Linda Fagan, the first woman to lead a branch of the armed forces, as commandant of the Coast Guard.
The Trump administration has also restored Confederate-associated names to military installations, dismantled diversity-related programs, and advocates say the Pentagon’s ongoing study of women serving in combat roles could lead to their participation being restricted.
Hegseth has defended his broader personnel changes as necessary to restore meritocracy and military readiness, arguing that diversity initiatives elevated race and gender over qualifications.
The Pentagon, in response to questions, rejected allegations that race or gender played a role in Hegseth’s promotion decisions, accusing critics of prioritizing identity over qualifications.
“As we’ve said before, military promotions are given to those who have earned them,” chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement. “The Department will never consider the color of a service member’s skin or their gender as a factor in promotions. Under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, meritocracy reigns supreme at the War Department.”
The promotion decisions are already taking a toll on troop morale, retention and confidence in the military’s advancement system, according to advocates for service members and veterans. They warn that officers may reconsider their military futures if they believe qualifications no longer dictate their prospects for promotion.
The blocked promotions have been “absolutely demoralizing,” said Kyle Bibby, a former Marine infantry captain and co-founder of the Black Veterans Project.
“The message is clear on who they believe should be allowed to serve,” he said. “They want people in those groups to know that they’re not desired and to make them feel uncomfortable about their service.”
Carter said that if Democrats control the House, the Congressional Black Caucus would use “every tool in our tool shed to bring about awareness and justice,” pressing for hearings, investigations and legislation to hold Pentagon leaders accountable.
He said he has discussed the administration’s actions with other Democrats, including lawmakers involved in national security and oversight. Carter said that Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington), the House Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, is among those taking the issue seriously.
Pressure from Carter’s 62-member caucus could elevate the issue as lawmakers juggle competing priorities. Its members include high-ranking members of the House and Senate, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
“Their collective voice represents millions of individuals across the country, and after Nov. 3, if Democrats win, you’ll have more African-Americans in positions of leadership than we’ve ever had, so it carries the weight of a metric ton,” said Bakari Sellers, a Democratic commentator and former South Carolina lawmaker.
Carter’s remarks came weeks after the Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee met to grapple with a crowded oversight agenda that could include investigations into the Iran war, Pentagon contracting, military strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats and more.
According to a HASC staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, lawmakers are still working out how to coordinate investigations with the House Oversight and Judiciary committees and when to dust off its seldom-used subpoena power, which Smith has publicly said he would be willing to invoke.
Smith has already identified Hegseth’s personnel decisions as an oversight priority, citing concerns about their impact on military recruitment and readiness — and discussed the issue with Congressional Black Caucus leadership, the staffer said. But it remains undecided whether there would be a formal investigation, according to the staffer. Also uncertain is which committee would take the lead and whether subpoenas would be involved.
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colorado), an Army veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee, said that panel Democrats have already been documenting the decisions and discussing potential investigation targets.
“We are being very intentional, very strategic, keeping close notes on what’s happening,” Crow said.
“I’m deeply concerned about the purges of the senior ranks, the politicization of what should be a merit-based promotion system,” Crow said, calling for “a very vigorous oversight and investigation of this to try to unravel what’s been happening and to seek accountability.”
Rep. Gil Cisneros (D-California), who served as the Pentagon’s undersecretary for personnel and readiness during the Biden administration, said previous defense secretaries traditionally relied on the military services’ recommendations for one- and two-star promotions, but they typically took a more active role in selecting the most senior commanders.
Officers could be removed from promotion lists, he said, but usually because of misconduct allegations. Cisneros described Hegseth’s removal of officers without publicly explaining the decisions as a sharp departure, which he called “definitely political interference.”
“The [congressional] investigation should show that what’s going on right now is not normal,” Cisneros said.
Legislation introduced this month by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) and Reps. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pennsylvania) and Marilyn Strickland (D-Washington) would restrict the grounds for removing officers from promotion lists, require documentation and establish a formal review process.
But that bill, the Military Officer Promotion Integrity Act, would apply to future decisions and would not affect promotions that were already blocked.
The consequences of missing a promotion extend well beyond losing a higher rank. Officers can lose access to command assignments, training and other opportunities essential to advancing their careers.
“It’s an up-or-out organization, so you can’t really get back what you’ve lost,” said Sue Fulton, the executive director of the Women in the Service Coalition, Inc.
Advocacy organizations say the uncertainty is already affecting how service members think about their futures — and that they are too afraid of reprisals to speak out.
“Our active duty members are too terrified, frankly, to come forward when they don’t necessarily know if they’re going to be protected,” said Rita Graham, policy director of the Service Women’s Action Network.
The National Women’s Law Center is also pressing for accountability, while its affiliated advocacy arm has endorsed Blumenthal’s legislation.
Adrienne DerVartanian, senior counsel for education and workplace justice at the organization, argued that removing qualified officers for political or ideological reasons is “incredibly harmful to morale” and makes the military less effective.
“I think we’re all safer,” she said, “when we focus on qualifications and not stereotypes.”
Authors
