The Sea Services have greater cause than the other services to maintain a strict apolitical standard. While a nonpartisan bearing is a foundational requirement throughout the armed forces, the nature of shipboard life, the isolation and austerity of Marine and special operations forward-operating bases, and the services’ persistent forward presence limit the ability of service members to compartmentalize the personal and the professional. This inescapable proximity during working and off-duty hours means significant political events can have a profound effect on the deckplates.
Recent events tested our unique dynamics when Admiral Franchetti was relieved on 21 February this year. The Sea Services maintained their required apolitical standard. Reactions both positive and negative were constrained to scuttlebutt—but the response was not silence. Other reverberations could also be heard about the myriad policy shifts that have recently come into effect.
How do military leaders address this situation? Like at the metaphorical Thanksgiving table, there is a temptation to simply stay silent. That appeals on several points: We can maintain nonpartisan compliance, prevent magnifying political topics by giving them any attention, and retain the power to act as necessary if conflicts arise. But silence by leaders, even on important political issues, also can weaken teams in critical ways. Sailors deserve guidance on their rights, responsibilities, and expectations. Not everyone is familiar with the nuances of the various directives that draw boundaries regarding political activities and social media use by military personnel. Second, leadership vacuums leave room for unofficial interpretations and shadow discussions that lack context and may breed misinformation that erodes unit cohesion. Finally, silence costs us the opportunity to reinforce the more powerful patriotic and service bonds that we all share.
This essay does not render an opinion on any specific policy directive but hopes instead to offer an alternative to silence and provide methods for thoughtful engagement. Leaders must determine what best fits their own operational and human contexts. With a deliberate, disciplined, and professional approach to politically charged issues, leaders can preserve the apolitical character of the Sea Services while strengthening the ties and conviction of our people.
Not Meant to be Ignored
The current administration has made transformation an immediate imperative. It is worth considering some of the major actions that are part of that drive, because the fleet is discussing them.
On the leadership front, Admiral Franchetti’s dismissal occurred within a broader restructuring that included the relief of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the senior Judge Advocate Generals for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Coast Guard Commandant, Admiral Linda Fagan, was relieved a month before Admiral Franchetti.
Policy shifts have been equally substantial. The administration has redirected resources from DoD studies relating to climate change and social science research. Revised guidance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has led to the discontinuation of commemorative events, widespread removal of digital content, and the implementation of policies affecting transgender service members. The Naval Academy was directed to remove 381 books deemed counter to the DoD policy on DEI and canceled a Stockdale Lecture by Ryan Holiday when he refused to leave discussion of that decision out of his speech. The Secretary of Defense has also called for a review of physical fitness standards for combat arms occupations.
Simultaneously, the administration is proposing significant growth in defense investment that will affect fleet capability and capacity. Most notably, the recent $150 billion defense reconciliation bill includes a historic $33.7 billion dedicated to naval shipbuilding and industrial base improvements. This comprehensive maritime investment includes funding for 16 new battle force ships. It represents the largest shipbuilding increase in decades. Looking ahead, the administration has announced plans for the first-ever $1 trillion defense budget in Fiscal Year 2026, signaling sustained commitment to military modernization and readiness.
These changes to personnel, policy, and procurement come with the stated purpose of making the Department of Defense “more lethal” and “more focused,” and they are not meant to be ignored. Whether one personally supports or questions specific decisions made by political leaders, the scope and pace of change will affect and be perceived differently by different people in the formation.
This administration is not the first—and won’t be the last—to make decisions that affect the military in controversial ways. Prior administrations’ decisions about racial integration, women in combat, LGBTQ servicemembers, pay and benefits, uniforms, major procurement programs, and when and where to deploy and use force have, at times, roiled the force. Military leaders have always needed to engage deftly to inform, calm, and guide their teams.
Why Engagement Matters
History offers valuable perspective. Previous generations of Navy leaders have faced sweeping and sometimes contentious changes, including technological, societal, and institutional transformations. One example of active engagement during a transformational period is the actions of CNO Admiral Elmo Zumwalt during the shift to an all-volunteer force in the 1970s. Facing an existential retention problem, Zumwalt authored 121 “Z-grams” to communicate directly with sailors about the issues that resonated on the deckplates of that era. As a result, retention improved dramatically, from 9.5 percent at the start of his CNO tour to 33 percent by its end.
Today's environment, however, presents some historically unique challenges. The newest generation to enter the fleet, Gen Z, is the first to grow up in a persistent, fully integrated digital environment, but the algorithmic polarization of news and information affects sailors and Marines of all generations. Most also participate in online discourse through social media. Expecting service members to either disconnect or to thoroughly conform to given standards of online engagement is unrealistic without guidance.
Junior sailors might be experiencing their first major organizational shift, and they are closely observing their leaders’ actions and their attitudes to change. The steps their superiors take—or do not take—will not only affect the service in the present moment but also will set a baseline for the behavior of these future naval leaders.
So, when do naval leaders need to engage on politically charged issues? When conversations in berthing spaces start to become heated; when retention interviews reveal uncertainty about institutional direction; when division officers report increasing tension among shipmates; or when spouses raise concerns through ombudsman channels. But this answer is not enough—it reflects a reactionary stance. Rather than waiting for conflict to emerge, the better solution is proactive engagement: preventing, as much as possible, issues from developing in the first place.
The critical question becomes: How do leaders engage effectively without inadvertently inviting conflict, while maintaining both personal integrity and institutional neutrality?
‘Z-Grams’ Over Silence
First, disarm through dialogue. Leaders can issue their own equivalent of Z-grams, or identify an appropriate forum for discussion—a command town hall, all-hands, departmental discussion, or a focused leadership session. The point is to address the theme of political change directly and professionally. Structured environments allow for controlled, mission-focused discussion that acknowledges realities while preventing divisive political debates.
These venues can also provide the opportunity to remind service members of the shared values that transcend political beliefs. The values of the Navy, distinct unit values, leadership guidance, and community ethos can be powerful guides in these engagements.
Second, personally model appropriate boundaries. Being the example others ought to follow is ever the cornerstone of any leadership model. How leaders express themselves will become the template by which teams set their behavioral standards, and when done properly it will provide leaders with the standing to act later. Leaders who know the rules and best practices, and who follow the wisdom of their seniors, powerfully embody the concept.
Last, and perhaps most important, is a naval leader’s role in educating service members about their rights and their responsibilities as citizens in uniform. This includes clear guidance on permissible political expression, resources for addressing concerns, and assurance that leaders remain available for appropriate clarification and support. Sailors and Marines should understand the distinctions between their official and personal capacities, recognizing when and how they might engage as private citizens while maintaining their professional obligations. This guidance does not stop at “Questions? Ask the PAO,” or, “The best social media post is no post.” Oversimplification is a disservice. Sailors and Marines also should understand what options are available when they find their red lines have been crossed.
Americans First
Not everyone will agree that direct engagement is the best course. For some, it might not be. A nuanced assessment of when and how extensively to address politically charged issues is important. Just as inadequate engagement may leave interpretive vacuums that foster uncertainty and diminish trust, excessive focus on political dimensions can inadvertently magnify their significance. While I recommend a strategy of engagement, each command will need its own calibrated response.
Sailors and Marines are Americans first. They volunteered to serve their country and continue to do so because of their devotion to the nation. They care deeply about that nation, the Sea Services, and the direction of both.
Strength does not emerge from passivity. The Sea Services—their work arduous by nature and austere by necessity—demand leaders who confront difficult realities with the same tenacity that they do operational objectives.
