The Trump administration is pushing to dismantle a Pentagon office responsible for protecting civilians during military operations, a move that signals a potential shift in U.S. military priorities under his second term. This decision comes as the Trump transition team directs the Department of Defense to review its current practices, including the future of the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence.
The center, which was set up under a 2023 law, is tasked with reducing civilian casualties in conflicts involving the U.S. military. However, according to several sources within the Pentagon, the Army is already drafting plans to defund and possibly disband the office, which would require congressional approval. While the Pentagon spokesperson confirmed the Army is still funding the center, the long-term fate of the office remains uncertain.
The center was established as part of an effort to address the growing number of civilian deaths in U.S. counterinsurgency operations, particularly following the 9/11 attacks. During Trump’s first term, civilian casualties increased during the air war against ISIS, prompting a review by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the creation of the Civilian Protection Center. Its role was to advise commanders in the field, integrate civilian harm reduction into military training, and provide real-time data to avoid unnecessary deaths.
In contrast to the Trump administration’s approach, the Biden administration emphasized the importance of civilian protection, integrating experts into military operations worldwide to ensure better oversight and decision-making. The Pentagon’s civilian harm reduction efforts are seen by some, like Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colorado), as crucial for both national security and the safety of U.S. troops. Crow, an Army veteran, emphasized that these efforts should not be rolled back, arguing that protecting civilians in conflict zones is a national security imperative.
However, Trump’s defense secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, has been vocal in criticizing what he sees as overly restrictive rules of engagement. Hegseth, who advocates for a more aggressive military approach, believes that such regulations can hinder military effectiveness. The potential closure of the Civilian Protection Center, therefore, could signal a return to a more unrestricted style of warfare, one that focuses less on civilian safety and more on military lethality.
Officials familiar with the center’s work argue that the program does not limit commanders’ abilities to carry out effective military operations. Rather, they contend that it provides crucial intelligence and helps prevent unintended harm to civilians, ultimately making military actions more precise. “This is about minimizing collateral damage while still achieving military objectives,” said one senior defense official. The fate of the Civilian Protection Center, and whether its efforts to protect noncombatants will continue under the Trump administration, remains a pressing question.
