H.R. McMaster on George Washington and Military Leadership at Arizona State University
Understanding the Military’s Role in American Democracy
>Retired Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the 25th United States national security advisor, recently delivered a compelling lecture at Arizona State University examining how George Washington’s approach to military leadership established principles that remain vital to American democracy. The April 28, 2026 lecture, hosted by ASU’s Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics, addressed a question that has taken on renewed urgency in today’s political climate: what is the proper relationship between the military and the civilian government it serves?
McMaster, who served 34 years in the U.S. Army and now serves as a Distinguished University Fellow at ASU, argued that the answer lies in understanding and applying the foundational example set by the nation’s first commander-in-chief. For students of history, political science, and military affairs, his analysis offers both a historical framework and practical guidance for navigating contemporary challenges.
The Fine Line Between Advice and Advocacy
At the center of McMaster’s argument is a distinction that sounds simple but carries profound implications: the difference between providing professional military advice and engaging in political advocacy. According to McMaster, George Washington understood this boundary intuitively and maintained it throughout his tenure as commander of the Continental Army.
“Washington knew that he owed Congress his best advice, his frank assessments, but he also knew not to cross the line between advice and advocacy or agitation,” McMaster explained during the lecture. This principle, he suggested, is not merely a historical artifact but a living requirement for military officers who serve in a democratic system.
The distinction matters because when military leaders cross from advice into advocacy, they risk undermining civilian control of the military—a cornerstone of American constitutional government. In an era when public confidence in institutions is strained and partisan divisions run deep, McMaster warned that this risk is more acute than ever.
Have questions about the intersection of military service and democratic governance? Write to us!
The Newburgh Conspiracy: A Defining Moment in Civilian Control
To illustrate Washington’s commitment to civilian authority, McMaster pointed to one of the most dangerous episodes in the early republic: the Newburgh Conspiracy of 1783. With the Revolutionary War winding down, Continental Army officers had grown frustrated by Congress’s failure to pay their wages. Some officers began discussing the possibility of using military force to pressure the civilian government—an act that could have derailed the American experiment before it truly began.
Washington’s response to this crisis has become a masterclass in leadership under pressure. Rather than either endorsing the officers’ grievances in a way that would legitimize coercion or suppressing the discontent through force, Washington appeared before the assembled officers and appealed directly to their sense of duty and honor. His intervention defused the crisis without violence and without compromising the principle that the military serves the civilian government, not the other way around.
McMaster characterized this moment as pivotal in establishing what would become a defining feature of American civil-military relations. The military’s subordination to civilian authority was not merely theoretical—it was tested under extreme circumstances and affirmed through leadership rather than coercion.
Washington’s Resignation: A Concrete Demonstration of Principle
If the Newburgh Conspiracy tested the principle of civilian control, Washington’s resignation of his military commission later in 1783 cemented it. In an era when successful military commanders routinely used their armies to seize political power, Washington’s voluntary surrender of authority sent a powerful signal to both his contemporaries and future generations.
McMaster described this act as a “concrete demonstration” that the military answers to elected leaders. It was not enough, Washington understood, to profess loyalty to civilian government in the abstract. The principle had to be demonstrated through action, in a way that left no room for doubt about where ultimate authority resided.
This gesture, McMaster argued, set a standard that has endured for nearly 250 years. It established a precedent that has influenced how American military officers understand their role—not as independent political actors, but as servants of the republic and its elected leadership.
The Personal Dimension of Apolitical Service
Perhaps the most striking moment in McMaster’s lecture came when he revealed that during nearly four decades of military service, he never voted. This decision, he explained, was inspired by the example of Gen. George C. Marshall and rooted in a desire to maintain an absolutely clear boundary between his professional responsibilities and political activity.
McMaster was careful to note that he does not expect others to follow this path. The point was not to establish a new rule for military officers but to illustrate the seriousness with which he approached the principle of keeping the military separate from partisan politics. He described the need to preserve what he called a “bold line” between the armed forces and political activity—a line that protects both the military’s effectiveness and the integrity of democratic governance.
This personal anecdote resonated with the audience, drawing both surprise and appreciation. It demonstrated that the principles McMaster was discussing were not abstract theories but commitments he had personally upheld throughout a distinguished career.
Historical Challenges to the Apolitical Military Ideal
McMaster did not present an idealized version of American civil-military relations. He acknowledged that the tradition of an apolitical military has not always been perfectly upheld and that historical examples offer cautionary lessons about what happens when the line between professional advice and political advocacy becomes blurred.
He cited the Civil War as a period when some officers broke their oaths to the Constitution, choosing instead to follow regional loyalties. More recently, he pointed to instances where military leaders have allowed their professional assessments to bleed into political commentary—sometimes intentionally, sometimes through the natural pressures of a hyper-partisan media environment.
Each of these cases, McMaster suggested, reinforces the importance of active commitment to the principle of civilian control. The norm does not maintain itself; it requires continuous reinforcement by military leaders who understand what is at stake and are willing to make personal sacrifices to uphold it.
Explore our related articles for further reading on American political history and leadership.
ASU’s Commitment to Civic Education and Dialogue
McMaster’s lecture was part of the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics’ Founding Values: 250 Years Later series, an initiative designed to use the approaching semiquincentennial as an opportunity for serious reflection on American principles. Joan McGregor, director of the Lincoln Center, explained that the series emerged from a recognition that finding common ground has become increasingly difficult in polarized times.
“The Lincoln Center designed the Founding Values event series because we are interested in finding and building common ground in polarizing times,” McGregor said. She emphasized the importance of engaging differing viewpoints rather than retreating into ideological silos, pointing to the Declaration of Independence as a document that can still serve as a foundation for shared purpose.
The event received funding support from the Jack Miller Center, with additional backing from the Sun Devil Cadet Leadership Society, Student Assembly at the School of Economic Thought and Leadership, the Melikian Center, and the Next Generation Service Corp. This broad base of support reflects ASU’s institutional commitment to making civic education a priority—not as an abstract academic exercise, but as a practical contribution to democratic health.
The lecture was organized by Ryan P. Sheldon, an Army ROTC cadet and fourth-year ASU student dual-majoring in international relations and civic and economic thought and leadership. Sheldon, who also serves as a junior fellow at the Leadership, Diplomacy and National Security Lab and an Intelligence Community Fellow, described the event’s purpose as both educational and unifying.
“Our goal is to educate both cadets and the broader public about the role of the military in our democracy while also bringing people together around shared values and principles necessary to lessen the political divide that is harming our country,” Sheldon said.
Schedule a free consultation to learn more about ASU’s programs in civic thought and leadership.
Lessons for Contemporary Military and Civilian Leaders
The principles McMaster discussed have implications that extend well beyond the military context. In a society where institutional trust has declined and political polarization has intensified, the question of how professionals in any field navigate the relationship between expertise and advocacy has become increasingly relevant.
For military leaders specifically, McMaster’s analysis suggests several practical takeaways. First, the obligation to provide frank professional advice to civilian leaders is real and should not be softened to avoid political discomfort. Second, that advice must be delivered in a way that respects civilian decision-making authority rather than attempting to substitute military judgment for political judgment. Third, military leaders must be vigilant about how their words and actions are perceived in a politicized environment—even well-intentioned statements can be weaponized in partisan conflicts.
For civilian leaders, the lesson is equally important. Civilian control of the military requires civilians who are willing to exercise that control responsibly—asking hard questions, demanding honest assessments, and making the final decisions that the Constitution assigns to elected officials. The civil-military relationship is a two-way street, and breakdowns can occur when either side fails to uphold its responsibilities.
Reflections as the Republic Approaches 250 Years
As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, McMaster urged his audience to reflect on the principles that have sustained the republic through periods of intense challenge. The norm of civilian control, he suggested, is not merely a procedural requirement but a reflection of deeper commitments: to government by consent, to the rule of law, and to the idea that military power must always remain subordinate to political authority derived from the people.
“Let us all do what we can to preserve the trust,” McMaster said in closing, “the trust that is foundational to military effectiveness, and the covenant that binds our military to those in whose name we fight and serve.”
These words carried particular weight coming from an officer who spent his career embodying the principles he was describing. In an era when trust in institutions is fragile and political divisions run deep, McMaster’s call for renewed commitment to foundational norms serves as both a warning and an invitation—an invitation to engage seriously with the hard work of democratic citizenship.
Arizona State University’s decision to host this lecture, and to build an entire series around founding values, reflects an understanding that universities have a distinctive role to play in fostering the kind of informed, thoughtful citizenship that democracy requires. By bringing together students, cadets, faculty, and community members to engage with these questions, ASU is contributing to a conversation that matters far beyond any single campus.
Submit your application today to join programs focused on leadership, ethics, and public service at Arizona State University.
Share your experiences and perspectives on military leadership and democratic values in the comments below.
