Shortly after taking office in 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth polled the nation's top military commanders about cutting Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response, a program designed to reduce civilian casualties during U.S. military operations. According to memos reviewed by ProPublica, every commander rejected his proposals. Hegseth proceeded with cuts anyway, reducing the program from nearly 200 personnel to approximately two dozen before the United States launched new campaigns in Somalia, Yemen and Iran.
CHMR was established after years of heavy civilian tolls in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The program stationed personnel within major regional commands to develop situational awareness on the ground in combat zones and advise commanders on strikes that could minimize harm to noncombatants. Hegseth had characterized such concerns as "woke" and inconsistent with his goal of "maximum lethality."
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and human rights advocates have criticized the cuts as reckless and counterproductive. Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said reducing civilian protection staff created "a self-inflicted wound" that undermined U.S. military credibility. "When we fail to take precautions that other nations take, it doesn't make us stronger — it makes us a target for the same criticism we've leveled at others," Smith told ProPublica.
Human rights organizations have called for restoration of the program. The International Crisis Group wrote in a recent report that civilian harm mitigation efforts are "essential to maintaining legitimacy and coalition support" in military operations. The organization noted that partner nations often condition their cooperation on U.S. adherence to civilian protection standards. Advocacy groups argue that strikes causing mass civilian casualties generate anti-American sentiment that fuels future instability.
Pentagon civilian casualty reports confirmed 153 civilians killed and 243 wounded during a spring 2025 Yemen air campaign — among the deadliest acknowledged incidents for noncombatants in modern warfare, according to Airwars, a British watchdog group. Progressives note this occurred after CHMR staffing was already diminished. "The numbers prove these programs save lives," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. "Cutting them wasn't boldness — it was a failure of basic military judgment."
What the Right Is Saying
Supporters of Hegseth's approach argue that excessive caution in targeting decisions slows operations and emboldens adversaries. Conservative commentators have praised what they characterize as a more aggressive posture against Iran-backed militants. "For years, constraints limited our ability to strike threats decisively," wrote The Heritage Foundation's defense analyst in an analysis titled "Restoring Deterrence." "The previous civilian protection apparatus was designed by people who believed America should apologize for using its military."
Republican defenders of the cuts point to operational successes in degrading militant capabilities. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a frequent administration ally on defense matters, argued that commanders must retain flexibility to conduct operations without bureaucratic interference. "Rules designed for counterinsurgency wars in Afghanistan don't serve us well when we're striking legitimate military targets," Cotton said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Some Republican hawks have expressed concern about civilian casualties but frame it as an execution issue rather than a structural one. "Our enemies will use any civilian deaths to undermine support for operations — that's why we need smart targeting, not expanded bureaucracy," said Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The administration has maintained that its operations have been lawful and proportionate.
What the Numbers Show
The poll conducted in early 2025 gave commanders three options: cut 65% of CHMR staff while keeping the effort operational; continue with only a small centralized office in Washington; or eliminate the program entirely. Nine of eleven regional commands selected the first option to preserve as much of the enterprise as possible, according to the memo reviewed by ProPublica.
Leaders of two commands — one overseeing the nuclear arsenal and another focused on cyber threats — declined all three options and requested maintaining the full program. U.S. Central Command, which oversees military action in the Middle East, pressed hardest to preserve staffing levels. Its leadership wrote that eliminating or scaling back CHMR would "result in decreased efficiency of U.S. lethal operations due to an increased risk of target misidentification and reduced battlespace awareness." CENTCOM recommended retaining all 16 of its CHMR personnel.
Staffing data shows the program dropped from approximately 195 positions under President Biden's administration to roughly 24 when major operations began — with some working only part time. Central Command, which had identified a minimum of nine staff needed for effective operation, was reduced to one person. Funding was stripped from almost all CHMR activities.
The Pentagon's own 2025 annual civilian casualty report confirmed the Yemen campaign killed 153 civilians and wounded 243 others. Airwars said the majority of deaths came from just two strikes, ranking them among the deadliest single incidents for noncombatants that U.S. military investigators have acknowledged in recent decades. On the first day of operations against Iran, a strike hit a school in Minab killing more than 100 children, according to reporting by ProPublica and other outlets.
The Bottom Line
The internal poll represents an unusual documented instance of uniformed military leaders unanimously opposing a senior civilian leader's policy direction — and being overruled. Current and former defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, told ProPublica the episode may have contributed to a broader pattern of leadership changes in the department.
Following international criticism of civilian casualties in Yemen and Iran operations, officials indicate CHMR could be partially revived. The potential reversal would mark a rare policy retreat in an administration that has tolerated little public dissent from military leaders. Several commanders who advocated for preserving the program have since rotated to new assignments — a common occurrence in military careers but one that outside analysts say makes institutional lessons harder to preserve.
What remains unclear is whether any revival will restore the program's previous staffing levels and authorities, or represent a more limited acknowledgment of concerns. Congressional oversight hearings on civilian casualty reporting are scheduled for later this year.