Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Could Milley’s calls to China have legal or constitutional implications for civilian control of the military?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows Gen. Mark Milley made two calls to his Chinese counterpart in late 2020 and early 2021 to reassure China the U.S. would not attack and to reduce the risk of unintended conflict, and he has defended those calls as within his duties [1] [2]. Critics have argued the calls raise legal and constitutional questions about civilian control of the military and possible unauthorized commitments; supporters and the White House have said Milley acted to preserve stability and uphold his oath to the Constitution [3] [4] [5].
1. What happened and why it matters: a candid recounting
Reporting and a subsequent public defense indicate Milley placed at least two calls—Oct. 30, 2020, and Jan. 8, 2021—to Gen. Li Zuocheng of China to assure him the United States would not suddenly attack and to reduce the chance of miscalculation [1] [2]. The episode matters because the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the military’s senior uniformed officer; actions he takes that touch on foreign commitments or nuclear command procedures immediately raise questions about where military judgment ends and civilian authority begins [1] [3].
2. Legal framework: civilian control and Milley’s formal authorities
U.S. law and long-standing practice place military command under civilian leadership—principally the president as commander in chief, with the secretary of defense and other civilian leaders exercising policy control (available sources do not mention specific statutes). Milley and his defenders explicitly framed his calls as part of routine military-to-military communications intended to prevent conflict and consistent with his oath to the Constitution [5] [6]. Reporting also notes officials—including the White House—publicly stated confidence in Milley’s fidelity to the Constitution [7] [4].
3. Constitutional and oversight questions raised by critics
Republicans and others charged that Milley’s calls could violate constitutional principles of civilian control or even constitute treason if he made unauthorized commitments—claims voiced publicly by former President Trump and some GOP lawmakers who demanded his firing or investigations [7] [8] [3]. Congressional inquiries and letters later asked inspectors general to determine whether Milley violated laws, regulations, or Constitutional principles—illustrating how oversight mechanisms were invoked to probe potential overreach [9].
4. Milley’s defense and alternative viewpoint
Milley insisted the calls were routine, coordinated with Defense Department officials at times, and intended to avoid inadvertent conflict; he framed them as lawful, consistent with his duties, and grounded in concerns about stability during a fraught transition [10] [11]. The White House and other defenders emphasized his patriotism and fidelity to the Constitution and noted his explanation that the communications reduced risk amid alarming intelligence and rhetoric [4] [5].
5. Where reporting documents disagreements, not settled law
Accounts in major outlets report competing interpretations: some see the calls as prudent risk-reduction; others call them improper promises that could undercut civilian supremacy or disclose sensitive information [1] [3]. None of the provided sources says a court or definitive legal authority has adjudicated criminality or constitutional violation in Milley’s case; instead, reporting shows political and congressional scrutiny and calls for probes [9] [3].
6. Practical implications for civilian control going forward
The episode revealed tensions between military judgment in crisis prevention and strict adherence to civilian direction; it prompted lawmakers to seek IG reviews and public testimony from Milley, who reaffirmed his oath and offered to provide documents and witnesses to oversight [9] [6]. Whether reforms or clarified rules for senior-officer communications will follow depends on the outcomes of oversight and the balance Congress and successive administrations choose between operational stability and guarding civilian supremacy (available sources do not mention any enacted reforms).
7. Bottom line for readers
Journalistic accounts document both the factual basis—Milley’s calls and his public defense—and the political fallout: sharp criticism and formal oversight requests [1] [9]. The question of constitutional or legal violation remains contested in public debate and oversight venues, not resolved by the reporting at hand; readers should note both the security rationale Milley offered and the strong partisan objections that treated the calls as a potential breach of civilian control [5] [3].