The Defense Department is facing intense scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers over its recent rollback of civilian protection efforts. Led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 10 lawmakers have accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of imperiling service members and eroding the military’s moral standing by gutting a program focused on protecting civilians.
The program, known as civilian harm mitigation and response (CHMR), was designed to reduce civilian casualties in U.S. military operations. However, under Hegseth’s leadership, the program has been significantly scaled back, leaving only a handful of staffers to monitor civilian harm issues. This reduction comes amid a surge in reports of civilian casualties in conflict zones such as Somalia and Yemen.
Global Attention and Surge in Civilian Casualties
The retreat from civilian protection drew global attention in February when an apparent U.S. strike killed dozens of children and teachers at a school in Iran. The incident, which occurred on the first day of the U.S.-Israeli war, is currently under investigation by the Pentagon. Beyond those deaths, conflict monitoring groups have recorded a dramatic increase in civilian casualties in Somalia and Yemen, which have seen a rise in U.S. strikes under the second Trump administration.
In March, current and former national security officials across party lines told ProPublica that the discarding of civilian protections is part of a broader remaking of the military around two key principles: more aggression and less accountability. The CHMR program, housed in a specialized Civilian Protection Center of Excellence mandated by Congress in 2026, aimed to embed prevention specialists within targeting teams and foster a culture that prioritizes civilian security in accordance with U.S. law and international rules of war.
The Impact of Hegseth’s Leadership
By the time of the Iran school strike, current and former personnel told ProPublica, the protection mission had been slashed by about 90%. This reduction occurred as the Defense Department accelerated the strike tempo across swaths of Africa and the Middle East. Hegseth has repeatedly expressed disdain for guardrails he describes as hindrances to combat forces.
Militant groups exploit civilian casualties to gain recruits and support, a practice retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has called insurgent math. For every innocent killed, the theory goes, at least 10 new enemies are created. The 10 Democratic lawmakers, including military veterans Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Sen. Mark Kelly, and Rep. Jason Crow, argued that the Trump administration’s military adventurism overseas, combined with its disregard for civilians, does not make the American people or our service members safer.
The Future of Civilian Protection
The letter ended with 20 questions the lawmakers want answered by July 9, including requests for the latest CHMR staffing and funding numbers, and an explanation for why the department wasn’t cooperative with the inspector general’s inquiry. Current and former CHMR personnel said it’s impossible to know whether a more robust prevention team could’ve helped the military avoid civilian casualties in Yemen and Iran. But they said the program could have made a difference, providing transparency and immediate inquiries into civilian deaths.
Nearly five months after the strike on the elementary school adjacent to an Iranian military compound in Minab, the Trump administration has yet to explain what happened. The Washington Post, citing officials familiar with the Minab inquiry, reported that the school was on a U.S. target list and may have been mistaken for a military site.
Annie Shiel, U.S. director of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, which advocates for the protection of noncombatants in warfare, said congressional support is critical at a moment when the CHMR mission hangs in the balance. The department is violating U.S. laws and policies that have grown out of hard-learned lessons from past wars and garnered bipartisan support across multiple administrations.
Historically, the military’s prioritizing of civilian protection has followed a pattern: A catastrophic incident kills civilians, the Pentagon pledges reviews and reforms, the issue recedes from view, and oversight slips until the next disaster. During the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in, a missile strike in Kabul killed an aid worker and nine of his relatives, including seven children. Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin apologized and said the department would endeavor to learn from this horrible mistake.
That incident, along with a New York Times investigation into deaths from U.S. airstrikes, spurred the adoption of the civilian harm mitigation and response action plan in 2026. Proponents didn’t view the plan as a cure-all but called it a step toward breaking the cycle of intermittent attention by making civilian protection a year-round mission. Now that mission is in limbo, and, according to the May inspector general’s report, defense leadership withheld access to department tools that track the program’s implementation.
