Two strategic rivals pursuing different models of military power projection are increasingly displaying a striking similarity: both are undertaking sweeping efforts to remove senior military leaders and tighten political control over their armed forces.
In China, President Xi Jinping has intensified an unprecedented anti-corruption campaign targeting senior People’s Liberation Army (PLA) generals, military administrators and defense industry executives. In the United States, President Donald Trump’s administration, led by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, has removed or sidelined dozens of senior military officials, citing organizational restructuring, ideological concerns and alleged misconduct.
Although the political systems, institutional structures and stated justifications behind the two campaigns are fundamentally different, both developments raise questions about the relationship between political loyalty, military professionalism and national defense preparedness.
The latest developments in Beijing came on October 29, 2026, when China’s Communist Party concluded its four-day Fifth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee. A communiqué issued at the end of the gathering confirmed the expulsion of 33 full and alternate Central Committee members, including at least 16 senior military generals.
The list included former senior officials from the powerful Central Military Commission (CMC), theater commands and China’s military-industrial establishment.
Among the most prominent figures were Lieutenant Generals Zhong Shaojun and Fang Yongxiang, who successively served as directors of the CMC General Office. The General Office is the commission’s principal administrative and secretarial organization and an important channel through which Xi manages military affairs.
The purges also reached China’s operational military command structure. Former Northern Theater Command commander Huang Ming, former Eastern Theater Command political commissar Liu Qingsong and former Western Theater Command commander Wang Haijiang were among those expelled.
Several prominent defense industry figures were also implicated. They included Lei Fanpei and Jin Zhuanglong, who previously held senior positions associated with China’s military-civilian integration system, a central component of Beijing’s efforts to strengthen the country’s defense industrial capabilities.
The communiqué confirmed that investigations into the officials had been completed and that previous decisions to expel them from the Communist Party had been ratified.
The gathering also adopted a document on advancing comprehensive and rigorous Party self-governance, reinforcing the importance of political discipline and loyalty within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The statement portrayed the campaign as an exercise in political responsibility, claiming that the leadership had demonstrated considerable political courage in removing serious hidden dangers within the military.
Xi Jinping heads both the Communist Party and the Central Military Commission, giving him authority over the country’s political leadership and armed forces.
The latest expulsions represent another significant escalation in Xi’s campaign to eliminate corruption and strengthen his personal authority over China’s military establishment.
Since assuming power in 2012, Xi has repeatedly emphasized that the armed forces must remain politically loyal to the Communist Party. However, the campaign intensified considerably from late 2023, when investigations began targeting senior officials across the defense establishment, particularly within the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF).
The Rocket Force, responsible for operating China’s conventional and nuclear missile arsenal, became a major focus of corruption investigations involving procurement, equipment development and senior military appointments.
In October 2025, China’s Ministry of National Defense announced the removal of nine senior military officers over serious violations of Party discipline and duty-related crimes involving extremely large sums of money.
The crackdown subsequently reached the highest levels of the military command structure.
In January 2026, Zhang Youxia, then vice-chairman of the CMC and one of the most influential figures in China’s military hierarchy, was placed under investigation for suspected serious violations of discipline and law. Former Chief of the Joint Staff Department Liu Zhenli was also targeted.
The Communist Party subsequently confirmed their expulsions in the October 2026 communiqué.
The consequences have been particularly significant for the seven-member Central Military Commission. Following the successive removals, only Xi and Zhang Shengmin, the military’s senior anti-corruption official, remain on the commission.
The scale of the campaign indicates that Xi is not merely targeting isolated corruption cases. It is also reshaping the military’s senior leadership and reinforcing the principle that no military official, regardless of rank or institutional influence, stands beyond the authority of the Party leadership.
Earlier this year, Xi described the fight against corruption as a never-ending journey and emphasized the need to remove what he called sick trees from the Party’s ranks.
For Beijing, the political foundations of military control go back to Mao Zedong. As Professor Kondapalli, a China studies scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, previously reminded EurAsian Times, Mao famously declared in 1927 that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Mao also established the principle that the Party commands the gun and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.
That principle remains central to the CCP’s understanding of civil-military relations.
Xi’s increasingly aggressive campaign appears designed to eliminate independent power centers within the PLA, weaken factional networks and ensure that the military remains personally and institutionally loyal to his leadership.
The timing is also politically significant. China’s next Party Congress is expected in the second half of 2027, when Xi is widely expected to seek another term as the country’s top leader.
However, the consequences of the campaign extend beyond internal political calculations.
Minxin Pei, a professor at Claremont McKenna College in California and editor of China Leadership Monitor, previously described the fall of Zhang Youxia as evidence that systemic trust within China’s political leadership had deteriorated.
In comments reported by The Wall Street Journal, Pei argued that Xi was increasingly relying on repeated political purges rather than a stable coalition of trusted officials to maintain his authority.
Such an approach could create uncertainty throughout the military hierarchy, where officers may become more concerned about political survival than operational performance.
Across the Pacific, the Trump administration is pursuing its own sweeping restructuring of the American military’s senior leadership.
Since becoming Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth has overseen the departure, dismissal or sidelining of numerous senior generals, admirals and defense officials.
The latest high-profile case involves Army Lieutenant General Brett Sylvia, who was removed from his position as director of strategy, plans and policy on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff in late October.
The Pentagon subsequently accused Sylvia of improperly disclosing classified information to journalists. The department said the investigation had been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal action, arguing that his removal was necessary to protect sensitive national security information.
Sylvia’s dismissal is particularly significant because the Joint Staff position involves coordinating military strategy and operational planning for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president.
The case has also emerged amid Hegseth’s broader campaign to identify officials suspected of leaking information to the media.
However, Sylvia is only the latest in a much wider series of senior military departures.
Since Hegseth took office, several of the American military’s most senior leaders have been removed or forced out, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Charles ‘CQ’ Brown Jr., Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Air Force Vice Chief General James Slife, Army Chief of Staff General Randy George and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse.
The Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy and Air Force have also been removed, alongside other senior commanders and officials.
According to CBS News, at least 20 generals, admirals and civilian defense leaders had been fired or departed their positions by September 2026. The number has continued to grow.
Hegseth has also made clear that the restructuring is not limited to individual dismissals.
In September, he announced plans to reduce the number of general and flag officer positions across the US military by 20 percent. He said the Pentagon had already dismissed approximately 10 percent of generals and admirals and would reduce another 10 percent of senior-officer positions.
In his September 30 address at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Hegseth defended the reductions as necessary to eliminate bureaucracy and reshape the military’s institutional culture.
He argued that the military could not change its culture while retaining the same personnel responsible for its previous direction.
‘Personnel is policy at every single level,’ he said.
Hegseth has repeatedly criticized diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, arguing that they weakened military effectiveness and distracted the armed forces from their primary mission.
His rhetoric has also been unusually confrontational. In an earlier statement, he declared that the military would no longer welcome what he described as ‘wimps’ and ‘radicals’, alongside other groups he criticized.
The administration’s approach has generated considerable controversy among retired military officials, lawmakers and national security experts.
Critics argue that removing experienced commanders without transparent explanations risks undermining institutional knowledge, weakening morale and discouraging independent professional advice.
There are also concerns that officers may increasingly interpret promotions and continued service through the lens of political loyalty rather than professional competence.
The Pentagon has defended its decisions as necessary to streamline the military, strengthen accountability and ensure that senior leadership reflects the administration’s priorities.
Nevertheless, the removal of several senior officers who held critical operational and strategic responsibilities has intensified concerns about the politicization of the American armed forces.
The developments in Washington and Beijing should not be treated as identical exercises.
China operates under a one-party political system in which the Communist Party exercises direct control over the armed forces. Xi’s campaign is rooted in the CCP’s longstanding principle that the military must remain subordinate to the Party.
The United States, by contrast, has a constitutional system based on civilian control of the military, institutional checks and balances, professional military leadership and an established distinction between political authority and operational command.
The Trump administration has the authority to appoint and remove senior military leaders, but the scale and stated ideological dimensions of the recent dismissals have raised questions about whether traditional institutional safeguards are being weakened.
Nevertheless, the underlying strategic concern is similar: political leaders want armed forces that reliably implement their national security priorities without becoming independent centers of influence or resistance.
For Xi, that means ensuring the PLA remains firmly under the Communist Party’s authority as China expands its military capabilities and competes with the United States across the Indo-Pacific.
For Trump and Hegseth, it means reshaping the American military around the administration’s strategic priorities, organizational preferences and cultural agenda.
Both approaches, however, carry potential risks for military modernization and operational effectiveness.
Modern armed forces depend on institutional experience, technical expertise, professional disagreement and continuity in strategic planning. Removing senior commanders on a large scale can disrupt established command relationships, delay decision-making and create uncertainty among officers responsible for implementing long-term modernization programs.
In China’s case, repeated investigations across the CMC, theater commands and defense industry could complicate military procurement, strategic planning and the development of advanced weapons systems.
For the United States, the departure of experienced generals and admirals could affect institutional continuity at a time when Washington faces growing strategic challenges involving China, Russia, Iran and other potential adversaries.
The larger question is whether political loyalty can replace the professional expertise required to manage increasingly sophisticated military organizations.
Both Xi and Trump appear willing to accept the institutional risks associated with their respective campaigns. Their calculations suggest that maintaining political control and ensuring leadership alignment currently outweigh concerns about short-term disruption.
For two countries competing to shape the international security order, the parallel purges reveal an important reality: military strength is not determined solely by weapons, budgets, technology or troop numbers. It also depends on the relationship between political leadership and the professionals entrusted with commanding the armed forces.
