Sign up for Inside the Trump Presidency, a newsletter featuring coverage of the second Trump term.

Updated at 9:20 a.m. ET on October 29, 2026

Earlier this week, the Pentagon’s chief planner, Army Lieutenant General Brett Sylvia, was ousted from the Joint Staff. No explanation was given. This comes at an inopportune moment, given that President Trump may be planning to relaunch the war on Iran. Sylvia, the former commander of the 101st Airborne Division, becomes the latest in a long line of senior officers who have been shown the door since Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrived at the Pentagon almost two years ago.

No replacement for Sylvia was named, and it is unclear who will take over his responsibilities. In the past, the deputy or vice director of the relevant directorate of the Joint Staff would fill the role on a temporary basis until the president nominated a candidate for Senate confirmation. Sylvia is the second person to be pushed out of the job of director of the Directorate for Strategy, Plans, and Policy at the Joint Staff, known inside the military as the J5, in the past year. His predecessor, Army Lieutenant General Joseph McGee, was forced to retire. “Now is not the time when you’d want to lose the J5,” a former Joint Chiefs of Staff official said. “This person would serve as a critical link between the operational force, the department policy, and the White House.”

Sylvia’s departure presages more upheaval in the Pentagon’s upper echelons as Trump looks to break the stalemate with Iran and weighs renewed combat after Tuesday’s elections. Trump had considered striking Iran before the midterms, my colleagues and I previously reported, and U.S. Central Command, which is running the war effort, has prepared a variety of strike options. Those plans range from a short burst of strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear sites to a longer campaign aimed at pushing Iran’s economy closer to the brink—and Iran’s government to the negotiating table. But the president has not yet decided how to proceed, and any strikes are unlikely to happen before next week. The war, which began in February, has been relatively quiet in recent months as U.S. and Iranian forces face off in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for global energy supplies. Iran effectively seized control of the strait shortly after the war began, while the U.S. has countered with a blockade of Iranian shipping.

The webpage naming Sylvia as a member of the Joint Staff has already been taken down. Sylvia did not respond to a request for comment.

If the war has gotten bogged down, Hegseth’s campaign of firings at the Pentagon has not. Sylvia is at least the fifth general pushed out or fired this year, each holding key positions within the military. Hegseth forced out General Randy George, chief of staff of the Army, at the height of the U.S. strike campaign in Iran, despite the Army’s role in restocking key munitions, which are now in short supply. That same month, Hegseth removed General David Hodne, the head of the Army’s Transformation and Training Command, and ousted Major General William Green Jr., the head of the Army Chaplain Corps. And in June, Army General Chris “C.D.” Donahue stepped down as the head of U.S. Army Forces in Europe and Africa amid disagreements with Hegseth. Donahue was widely seen as one of the Army’s rising stars—a Delta Force leader who was considered a top candidate for Army chief of staff or even chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In all, at least 26 admirals and generals have stepped down or been pushed out since Hegseth took control of the Pentagon less than two years ago.

The Pentagon has rarely provided rationales, leaving those still in place to guess about the causes. The reasons, according to officials, tend to fall into one or more of three categories: previous work on policies that Hegseth considers “woke,” such as promoting diversity; perceived closeness to a former general considered persona non grata by the current administration, such as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley; and being suspected by Hegseth of leaking to the press. The message received through the ranks is that anyone viewed as insufficiently enthusiastic about Hegseth’s political views or priorities is at risk.

Department of Defense officials told me that the rationale for firing Sylvia mirrored that of others pushed out before him: Hegseth lost confidence in him, and he did not get along with the top civilian in charge of policy, Elbridge Colby, the No. 3 leader at the Pentagon. In September, during his State of the Force speech, Hegseth said that the Pentagon had fired approximately 10 percent of its generals and admirals, and was eliminating another 10 percent of senior-officer positions.

“The Chairman, the Joint Staff, and the Joint Force extend our deepest gratitude to Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia and his family for their 32 years of distinguished service to our nation,” a spokesperson for the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement. “We wish him and his family the best as they graduate to new opportunities and the next chapters of their lives.”

After publication, the spokesperson issued a follow-up statement that said: "We are withdrawing our earlier statement concerning this personnel matter. Upon further review, we determined that the statement did not appropriately reflect the full circumstances." The spokesperson didn’t elaborate.

Last year, the conservative activist Laura Loomer called in a social-media post for the Trump administration to fire Sylvia’s son Gavin, an employee of the Department of Homeland Security as a data analyst at FEMA, charging that he had posted an inflammatory message on Instagram shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In the post, Loomer referred to the general as well, saying: “His father is a Major General in the United States Army and currently serves at the Pentagon. He was nominated for a third star by Joe Biden.” Her screed also took aim at Gavin Sylvia’s brother and grandmother. “These people hate us,” she wrote. “They don’t belong near the levers of our National Power.” She ended the post by saying Hegseth “should also review the employment of Gavin’s father, MG Brett Sylvia.” Gavin Sylvia was placed on administrative leave, The Washington Post reported.

A 1994 graduate of the United States Military Academy, in West Point, Sylvia spent much of his career in the Army’s airborne and air-assault units. He commanded the 101st Airborne Division out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky. And he deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan as a member of the 101st. His military decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, six Bronze Star Medals—including one with valor—and the Purple Heart.

Missy Ryan and Marie-Rose Sheinerman contributed reporting.

President Trump has been hearing lately from two trusted confidants, each promising a quick path to ending the war in Iran. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that Iran is on the brink of economic collapse and that a U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, combined with sanctions, will force Tehran to capitulate at the negotiation table. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a series of calls with Trump, has offered a different route: one more round of devastating U.S. and Israeli strikes to topple the regime. Now the Trump administration appears to be considering combining the two approaches, betting that Iran is already on the verge of economic ruin and that a few more major strikes will be enough to trigger regime change.

The president is considering reviving his military campaign against Iran with several days of strikes, likely just after the midterm elections, officials told us. The potential targets include Iran’s missile and drone arsenal as well as its energy infrastructure and nuclear facilities. One outside adviser told us that “the economic pressure is working, and we believe Iran is getting close to the edge.” The new strikes, the person added, “would push them over.”

Experience suggests that this may be wishful thinking. Economic pressure has badly weakened Iran, but the country’s negotiating position has hardly budged. Trump has thought before that Iran was on the verge of ruin—or already past it—only to discover that he’d miscalculated. And launching more strikes could spark a regional escalation without bringing the regime any closer to surrender. Speaking at Tehran’s Holy Defence Museum earlier this week, Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi, a spokesperson for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, named seven major fiber-optic cables beneath the surface of the Strait of Hormuz as potential “new targets” and teased that future attacks would feature “new weapons.” If the proposed U.S. strike plan fails to bring Iran to its knees, Tehran could emerge even less willing to make concessions.

“Trump is desperate to find some options to take him out from this problematic situation,” Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence officer who specializes in Iran, told us. “But you cannot plan for a three-day war, because it is not a unilateral decision. You cannot control how Iran responds.” Nevertheless, the president appears intent on acting. “Something one way or another, it will happen fairly soon,” Trump told a reporter yesterday before boarding Air Force One.

Despite all of the reasons resuming strikes could be a mistake, the president is tempted because he’s grown impatient waiting for the strategy of economic strangulation to work. He had originally hoped that Iran would come crawling back to the negotiations before the midterm elections, an official and another person familiar with the conversations told us under the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations. That has not happened, and energy prices have stayed high—creating an awful political landscape for Republicans. Trump has toned down some of his apocalyptic rhetoric toward Tehran, but his frustration occasionally seeps through, often in late-night social-media posts.

Trump has toyed with the idea of resuming hostilities before Election Day, a push championed by those in Washington who believe that a show of force could allow the president to claim some sort of October-surprise victory. Netanyahu has advocated for another round of strikes before his own election next week, a White House official confirmed to us. So far, Trump has held off on authorizing a pre-midterms strike; after we reported on the possibility earlier this month, the behind-the-scenes blowback from fellow Republicans was so intense that the president posted on Truth Social that he would not attack again before the election.

[Read: Trump is preparing for a long war]

U.S. officials stress that no decision has been made about whether to resume strikes post-election, although there have been very public signs of preparation. Some officials hope that uncertainty about what the United States will do—and when—will keep Tehran on edge. Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth traveled to Israel and met with Netanyahu to discuss Iran. The State Department said yesterday that it was evacuating nonessential personnel and their family members from Saudi Arabia because of escalating attacks from Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Real questions remain about whether the Pentagon’s munitions supplies, which were growing dangerously low at the height of the conflict, would be adequate to defend U.S. interests in the Middle East. Meanwhile, even the hint of hostilities has spooked markets; the price of oil surged and the stock market fell today as word circulated about a possible return to war and Iran hit tankers in the strait. (The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. U.S. Central Command, which leads the war in Iran, declined to comment.)

The costly U.S. naval blockade, which has effectively stopped Iranian oil exports, coupled with sanctions and damage from U.S. strikes, has put Iran’s economy under severe strain. Inflation is soaring; goods are scarce. The record-low value of the rial has left Iranians struggling to pay for basic needs. Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of U.S. Central Command, said last week that the naval blockade had prevented Iran from exporting at least $25 billion worth of crude oil. The International Monetary Fund has projected that Iran’s economy will contract sharply in 2026. But while Tehran is trying to contain the damage through measures such as price controls and maintaining essential imports, there is little evidence that Iran is on the verge of imminent economic collapse. Over the summer, Bessent promised “financial violence” that would lead to Iran’s capitulation. Yesterday, the Treasury Department added sanctions targeting shipping networks and intermediaries “indirectly aiding Tehran’s ability to generate revenue to fund its military, weapons, and nuclear programs.”

“I think it could be within weeks or months—and the economy doesn’t have to collapse. We just have to have the regime come to their senses,” he told reporters at an August G20 finance ministers’ meeting. But the belief that that point will come soon ignores the patterns of history: The hard-liners in Tehran have become inured to the suffering of their people over decades and have yet to capitulate.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has repeatedly urged Trump, who has endorsed the prime minister in his reelection bid, to launch strikes before Israel’s Tuesday election and the United States’ vote a week later, an Israeli television station reported last week. Netanyahu’s office has reportedly denied the claim. Regardless, the war is key to the political futures of Netanyahu and Trump. How and when it ends, however, is not entirely up to them.

Giovanna Perez loaded her four kids into the car on September 21 and drove from their home in Weslaco, Texas, to Naval Air Station Corpus Christi. She had a 9:30 a.m. appointment to pick up the ID cards that would allow them to access military medical insurance, facilities, and commissary stores. Her husband, Pedro Gutierrez, had recently enlisted in the Army and left a month earlier for basic training at Fort Benning, in Georgia.

Perez approached the military guards at the gates with some trepidation. Her parents illegally brought her across the U.S. border from Mexico when she was 6 years old. Now 35, she and Gutierrez have been together since they were 17 and have carefully kept her immigration status a secret. Gutierrez is a U.S. citizen, but marriage does not give legal status to someone who is in the country unlawfully. When the Obama administration started the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to protect immigrants like Perez who had arrived as children, she did not apply, for fear that the government might someday use the information against her family.

Perez told us that her husband believed that joining the Army would allow him to serve his country, give his family access to health care—including the costly medications his son takes—and potentially protect his wife from deportation. He had already submitted her application for a benefit called Parole in Place, which offers a path to legal residency for the close relatives of service members. Officials at Fort Benning had assured him that she would have no trouble getting IDs for herself and the children, and that it didn’t matter that she didn’t have a Social Security number, Perez told us.

At the gates of the Navy base, guards told Perez they had no record of her appointment. She remained calm as they directed her to a nearby office to get a visitor’s pass. That’s when two military officials took the family into a room for questioning. “In my head, I thought it was just protocol for the safety of the base, but it started getting weird,” Perez said. As she answered, she told us, one of the military officers appeared to be relaying her responses to someone through text messages.

Two other men entered the room. They wore khaki pants, she said, not military fatigues. The patches on their shirts said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It appeared to Perez that they’d been waiting for her, at the base or somewhere nearby. The men told Perez to report to the ICE office in Harlingen, Texas, in three days. Her older children, ages 17, 15, and 11, were confused. “My kids were just, like, What’s going on?” Perez told us. “Are they gonna detain you? Why are they doing this to us? I thought you were supposed to be safe.”

Perez didn’t know what to tell them, and she had no way to call her husband. When she went to the ICE office three days later, she was booked and issued an order to appear in immigration court. She suspected the military shared her information with ICE. And now the government was trying to deport her.

Perez’s attorney, Alex Martinez, told us he’s trying to determine whether other families have been targeted in similar ways. He suspects that the government has been using Parole in Place to gather information for immigration-enforcement purposes—the opposite of what military recruits are led to believe.

“There’s no bigger betrayal to our soldiers than to use their trust in a program, set out by our government to protect their families, and ultimately use it to destroy their families while they’re serving our country and putting their lives on the line,” Martinez told us. “You’re stabbing your own soldiers in the back.”

The Associated Press in August identified at least 50 cases in which close family of active-duty service members were arrested by ICE. What’s different about Perez’s case is that U.S. military personnel appeared to be working with ICE to identify a potential target and use a long-standing military-recruitment tool—the promise of legal status for loved ones—to facilitate an arrest.

ICE confirmed to us in a statement that Navy personnel had reported Perez to immigration officers when the family arrived at the base. The Department of Homeland Security and ICE “value the contributions of all those who serve in the U.S. military,” the statement said. “Having a family member in the military is not a free pass to violate our nation’s laws. Military service by an immediate relative does not automatically grant parole, lawful status, or immunity from immigration enforcement."

Perez told us the ICE officers seemed to be expecting her, told her they knew that Gutierrez had applied for Parole in Place, and asked questions about a trip her son had taken with his grandmother to Mexico years earlier.

Neither the Army nor the Office of the Secretary of Defense responded to requests for comment, but one defense official told us that there have been “varying degrees of cooperation between military installations and the Department of Homeland Security” for more than a year. The official declined to be named because he, like others we spoke with, was not authorized to talk publicly about this issue. Another official told us that DHS often made such requests to installations at a local level, but there were inconsistent degrees of cooperation. The Navy declined to comment.

[Read: Trump loves ICE. Its workforce has never been so miserable.]

Within months of President Trump’s second inauguration, military mental-health specialists began telling us that service members within their units were fearful about how the administration’s crackdown on immigrants could affect their families. They described spouses afraid to go on base while their partner was deployed, family members too scared to leave their home, and uniformed service members accompanying loved ones to immigration appointments or hearings with the hope that their presence would make immigration officials or judges pause. Such worries, the specialists said, were becoming a distraction for those serving, particularly during deployments. It was an early sign of a break in a long-standing bargain: A government that asks Americans to take extraordinary risks would not add stress that could distract service members from their missions.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth frequently touts the military’s surging recruitment numbers. Less often mentioned is the military’s success in recruiting from some of the country’s most heavily Hispanic communities, including the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, where Perez and Gutierrez live. Hispanic recruits accounted for nearly 27 percent of new Army soldiers last year, up from just less than 20 percent in 2020, according to Army statistics. This population remains key to the Army meeting its recruiting standards even as service members from these communities have reported that their families have been targeted by ICE.

Military law enforcement cannot provide direct support to civilian law enforcement, under the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century law that was intended to keep the military from meddling in the affairs of southern states. But to secure an installation, military police can inspect those who enter. “Anytime somebody makes an appointment on a military base, that information could get shared throughout the federal government,” Margaret D. Stock, an immigration lawyer and former Army Reserve officer who helped develop the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program, told us. Under the Trump administration, those who serve, along with their families, are no more protected from immigration enforcement than those submitting their data to any other government agency. “The military is no longer immune from this,” Stock said. Some troops are asking for overseas assignments where they can live with their family members, far from ICE agents.

In April, ICE officers arrested the 22-year-old wife of a U.S. soldier when the couple moved to an Army base in Louisiana. The woman, Annie Ramos, was born in Honduras and had a previous deportation order issued in absentia when she was a toddler. Ramos was released after Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a Democrat, spoke with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on her behalf.

Bobby Pulido, a Democratic candidate in the Rio Grande Valley who is running for Congress, has cited her case as an example of ICE overreach by the Trump administration. “The scary part is they’re doubling down on it. They don’t care,” Pulido said in a video clip with Perez that his campaign posted on social media on Wednesday.

It used to be that the military was seen as a potential pathway to U.S. citizenship. Military service can qualify noncitizens for expedited naturalization, and the Pentagon has at times recruited people who were not permanent residents. More than 180,000 members of the U.S. military have become naturalized citizens since 2002, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. In 2008, at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon launched the MAVNI program, which allowed some immigrants who were living legally in the U.S. but were not citizens to enlist based on specialized skills considered vital, including medical expertise and foreign-language proficiency. The program expired in 2017 and was not renewed. The government established the Parole in Place benefit in 2010, allowing family members to remain in the United States and apply for legal status. Approval is discretionary and does not guarantee a green card. But the promise remains a powerful recruiting tool for the armed services in immigrant communities.

[Read: The northern passage]

Perez said she has no criminal record and no previous deportation orders. She met her husband at a quinceañera party when they were teenagers in Laredo. Gutierrez drove commercial trucks but decided to enlist in the Army to secure health-insurance coverage for the family and college-tuition aid for their older children. Fixing Perez’s immigration status was another incentive for him, she told us.

It was in a 20-minute weekend phone call that Gutierrez learned the country he was serving had been trying to deport his wife and separate his family. Had Perez been sent to a detention center, as many immigrants are, Gutierrez would have been forced to leave basic training to care for his children—a governmental loss of not just a new service member but also roughly $50,000 in sunk training costs, according to Army estimates. Perez stays home to take care of their 2-year-old, and she told us she has no idea what would happen to her children if ICE sent her to Mexico. “I have no one,” she said. “I’m by myself.”

Her husband will graduate from basic training on November 5, and Perez and her children plan to drive to Georgia for the ceremony at Fort Benning. They were issued their military IDs, so they should be allowed onto the base. Perez told us that she’s in a discussion group with other military families who are asking a lot of questions about who will be allowed to attend the graduation. Five days after the ceremony, Perez will be due back in court in Texas.