Gen. Christopher Donahue, the last American soldier to leave Afghanistan and one of the most combat-tested officers in the U.S. Army, will relinquish command of all Army forces in Europe and Africa on July 2, after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth requested his retirement papers. His deputy, Maj. Gen. Christopher Norrie, will assume duties immediately afterward.
Donahue's departure makes him the latest in a growing roster of more than two dozen senior military leaders who have left or retired early under Hegseth's tenure at the Pentagon. Fox News reported that the Army issued a brief statement thanking Donahue "for his leadership of U.S. Army Europe and Africa" but offered no further explanation. The Pentagon did not immediately comment.
The move fits a deliberate pattern. Hegseth has made clear he wants fewer generals and more enlisted soldiers, a mantra he has distilled as "less generals, more GIs." The question is whether the pace and breadth of these leadership changes strengthen readiness or hollow out institutional knowledge at a moment when Europe's security architecture faces its most serious test since the Cold War.
Donahue is a West Point graduate and career special operations commander who led Delta Force units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He took command of the 82nd Airborne Division in July 2020 and held it through March 2022, a window that included the most chaotic chapter of America's nearly 20-year war in Afghanistan.
In August 2021, Donahue oversaw security at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul as roughly 124,000 Afghan citizens were airlifted out of the country. An ISIS-K suicide bomber struck Abbey Gate during the evacuation, killing 13 U.S. service members and roughly 170 Afghan civilians. On August 30, 2021, Donahue boarded a C-17 cargo plane and became the last American service member to leave Afghan soil.
That image, a four-star general walking up a ramp in night-vision goggles, became one of the defining photographs of the withdrawal. The Associated Press noted that Donahue was widely regarded inside the Army as one of the most seasoned soldiers in uniform, with more combat experience than most, and was thought to have the potential to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
After the withdrawal, Donahue coordinated military aid to Ukraine following Russia's invasion in February 2022. He arrived at Rzeszow-Jasionka airport in southeastern Poland from Fort Bragg on February 6, 2022, as the crisis escalated. Former President Biden appointed him to lead U.S. Army Europe and Africa in December 2024.
Donahue's exit does not exist in isolation. Hegseth has systematically thinned the top ranks of the military since taking over at the Pentagon. The Washington Examiner reported that Donahue follows a string of high-profile departures, including Navy Secretary John Phelan, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Charles Q. Brown, and former Army chief of staff Gen. Randy George.
The defense secretary has framed these changes as necessary reform. He told NATO officials in Brussels that he would lead a six-month review of American forces in Europe, designed to push European allies toward greater self-reliance.
Hegseth laid out the stakes in blunt terms, as Fox News reported:
"This will be a real review. It will be designed to ensure that NATO is moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe leading, stepping up to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe."
He added: "It's a review that some countries will fail and others will pass with flying colors."
That kind of direct language reflects a strategic conviction shared by many conservatives: that European nations have free-ridden on American defense spending for decades, and that the era of open-ended U.S. guarantees must end. The principle is sound. The execution is where legitimate debate begins.
Not all of the criticism has come from the left. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who voted to confirm Hegseth, publicly condemned the pace and manner of the personnel changes. Newsmax reported that Tillis called the decisions "amateur hour at best and deadly at worst."
Tillis's statement went further, urging Hegseth to "keep your word, Mr. Secretary. Choose meritocracy over your mediocre yes-men." The senator objected specifically to the cancellation of a 4,000-troop deployment to Poland and the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany, moves he viewed as reckless given Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine.
That kind of intra-party friction is worth taking seriously. Conservatives rightly want a leaner, more accountable Pentagon. But Senate Republicans have pressed Hegseth repeatedly on whether these personnel decisions reflect strategic thinking or simply a preference for compliance over competence.
Democratic senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly have also scrutinized the departures, though their objections carry a different political charge. The more consequential pressure comes from Republicans who supported Hegseth's confirmation and now question whether the results match the rhetoric.
Donahue's connection to the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal adds another layer. President Trump attacked former President Biden over the chaotic exit for years. Hegseth himself ordered a new investigation of the withdrawal last May, a probe that joins prior reviews conducted by the Pentagon, U.S. Central Command, the State Department, and Congress.
Whether Donahue's role in the Kabul evacuation played any part in Hegseth's decision to request his retirement is unclear. The available facts do not establish a direct link, and the broader pattern of general-officer reductions offers a sufficient explanation on its own. But the optics are unavoidable: the general who became the face of America's departure from Afghanistan is now being shown the door from his European command barely 18 months into the job.
The Associated Press noted that Donahue's command, U.S. Army Europe and Africa, was already being considered for a downgrade from a four-star to a three-star billet, a structural change that would eliminate the need for a general of Donahue's rank regardless of who held the position.
That detail matters. If the Army is going to shrink the command, then removing its current occupant is a logical step, not a personal one. But it also raises a practical question: does a three-star command carry the same weight with NATO allies who are being asked to shoulder more of their own defense?
Donahue faces a bureaucratic wrinkle on his way out. Because he has not held his fourth star for the requisite three years, he will need a presidential waiver to retain four-star retirement benefits. Whether that waiver has been requested or granted remains unknown.
Maj. Gen. Norrie, Donahue's deputy, will step into the role after July 2. His full background and qualifications have not been publicly detailed in connection with this transition. The gap between a four-star commanding general and a two-star deputy assuming those duties is not trivial, particularly at a command responsible for coordinating with NATO's Allied Land Command.
Hegseth's tenure has been marked by friction from multiple directions. House Democrats filed impeachment articles against him, a move that carried more political theater than legislative substance. More telling has been the erosion of confidence among Republicans who initially backed him.
The Atlantic first reported Donahue's exit. Fox News confirmed it through the Army's statement. Neither the Pentagon nor the Army provided an on-the-record explanation beyond the brief thanks for Donahue's service.
Conservatives who want a reformed Pentagon, one that spends less on bureaucracy and more on lethality, have every reason to support the principle behind Hegseth's approach. The military's top-heavy command structure has drawn criticism for years, and the idea that European allies should pay more for their own defense is not new. It was a centerpiece of Trump's first term.
But principle and execution are different things. Pushing out a combat-tested general with Delta Force, 82nd Airborne, and NATO coordination credentials, amid broader internal conflicts, demands a clear explanation of what comes next. Taxpayers and service members deserve to know that the people replacing these leaders are chosen for capability, not conformity.
Reform without a plan is just disruption. And disruption at the command level, in a theater where Russian aggression is not theoretical, is a risk that falls on the soldiers who stay behind, not the officials who ordered the change.
