The Dismantling of Civilian Protection Efforts Under the Trump Administration Fuels Escalating Tragedies

Images emerging from a missile strike in southern Iran presented a scene of unimaginable horror, a stark contrast to the meticulous case studies Air Force combat veteran Wes J. Bryant had analyzed in his mission to overhaul how the U.S. military safeguards civilian life. The aftermath of the attack on an elementary school in Minab revealed weeping parents mourning over the bodies of their children, with crushed desks and blood-stained backpacks scattered amidst the rubble. Iranian health officials reported a devastating death toll exceeding 165, with the vast majority of victims being children under the age of 12, and nearly 100 others wounded. Viral photographs of small coffins and rows of freshly dug graves served as a grim emblem of the early days of the open-ended U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.

Bryant, a former special operations targeting specialist, found himself grappling with a cascade of "what-if" scenarios as he monitored the fallout from the February 28th attack. Just over a year prior, he had been a senior adviser within an ambitious new Defense Department program designed to significantly reduce civilian harm during military operations. At that time, Bryant expressed that the military was finally taking a serious approach to reform. He operated out of a newly established Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, under the supervision of a veteran strike-team targeter who had previously served as a United Nations war crimes investigator.

However, that crucial momentum has since dissipated. Bryant was compelled to leave government service during budget cuts implemented in the spring. The dedicated civilian protection mission was subsequently dissolved as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prioritized "lethality" as a paramount objective. The tragic events in Minab, if U.S. responsibility is confirmed, could represent the single deadliest attack resulting in civilian fatalities by the U.S. military in decades.

Defense analysts argue that the dismantling of this nascent harm-reduction effort is indicative of broader shifts within the Trump administration’s national security apparatus, which has increasingly reorganized around the principles of heightened aggression and diminished accountability. According to statements from over a dozen current and former national security personnel, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisal, President Trump and his advisors lowered the authorization threshold for lethal force, expanded the categories of permissible targets, inflated threat assessments, and terminated inspectors general.

"We are departing from the rules and norms that we have strived to establish as a global community since at least World War II," Bryant stated, emphasizing a concerning lack of accountability. "There is zero accountability."

Mounting Evidence and Official Denials

Multiple news outlets, citing open-source intelligence and government officials, have concluded that the strike in Minab was most likely carried out by the United States. President Donald Trump, however, asserted to reporters on March 7th, without providing evidence, that the attack "was done by Iran." Defense Secretary Hegseth, standing beside the President aboard Air Force One, indicated that the matter was under investigation.

The following day, the open-source research organization Bellingcat reported authenticating a video depicting a Tomahawk missile strike in close proximity to the school in Minab. Iranian state media later presented fragments of a U.S.-made Tomahawk missile, identified by Bellingcat and other sources, recovered from the attack site. The United States is the sole known possessor of Tomahawk missiles within the conflict. United Nations human rights experts have subsequently called for a thorough investigation into whether the attack constituted a violation of international law.

The Department of Defense and the White House did not respond to requests for comment regarding these developments.

A Legacy of Civilian Casualties and the Rise of CHMR

Since the post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, successive U.S. administrations have grappled with controversies surrounding civilian deaths. Defense officials, eager to distance themselves from the legacy of prolonged "forever wars," have periodically advocated for enhanced civilian protections. This culminated in 2022 with the adoption of a strategy rooted in earlier efforts and formalized under Biden-era leadership.

The initiatives, collectively known as Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR), were codified in a 2022 action plan and a subsequent Defense Department instruction. CHMR, often pronounced "chimmer," aimed to establish a standardized framework for reducing civilian harm. Approximately 200 personnel were assigned to this mission, including around 30 at the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, a coordination hub situated near the Pentagon.

The CHMR strategy emphasized more comprehensive pre-attack planning, including real-time mapping of civilian presence in operational areas and in-depth risk analysis. Post-operation, reports of harm to non-combatants were to trigger assessments or investigations to identify systemic failures and integrate lessons learned into ongoing training.

By the time of the Trump administration’s return to power, harm-mitigation teams were embedded within regional commands and special operations leadership. During Senate confirmation hearings, several Trump nominees for high-level defense positions expressed support for the CHMR mission. However, once in office, these officials reportedly stood by as the program was significantly diminished, according to current and former national security officials.

The Erosion of CHMR

Former personnel indicate that approximately 90% of the CHMR mission has been dismantled, with no more than a single adviser now stationed at most commands. At Central Command, for instance, a 10-person team was reduced to a single individual. While a "handful" of the eliminated positions were reportedly backfilled to support the Iran campaign, the broader harm-reduction infrastructure has been severely compromised. Defense officials are technically unable to formally close the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence without congressional approval, but Bryant and others assert that it now exists largely in name only.

"It has no mission or mandate or budget," Bryant stated, underscoring the program’s effective paralysis.

Spike in Lethality and a Return to Past Mistakes

Global conflict monitors have observed a dramatic surge in deadly U.S. military operations since the Trump administration’s return. Even prior to the initiation of the Iran campaign, the number of U.S. strikes worldwide since Trump took office has surpassed the total from all four years of Joe Biden’s presidency, according to data from ACLED.

Current and former officials contend that had the Defense Department’s harm-reduction mission continued its trajectory, the number of non-combatants harmed over the past year would have been substantially lower. Beyond the moral imperative, they highlight that civilian casualties serve as a potent recruiting tool for militant groups and impede intelligence gathering. Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, famously articulated this dynamic through his "insurgent math" equation: for every innocent civilian killed, at least ten new enemies are created.

According to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, which verifies casualties through a network within Iran, U.S.-Israeli strikes have already resulted in over 1,200 civilian deaths in Iran, including nearly 200 children. The agency reports that hundreds of additional deaths are currently under review, a process complicated by Iran’s internet blackout and the prevailing dangerous conditions. Defense analysts suggest that the civilian toll in the Iran campaign, coupled with recent non-combatant casualties in Yemen and Somalia, resurrects troubling chapters from the "war on terror" that initially spurred the very reforms now being dismantled.

"It’s a recipe for disaster," commented a senior counterterrorism official who departed the government several months ago, referring to the Trump administration’s year-long bombing campaign. "It’s ‘Groundhog Day’ – every day we’re just killing people and making more enemies."

The memory of the 2015 attack on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in northern Afghanistan, where a U.S. gunship killed two dozen patients and 14 staff members, remains a potent cautionary tale for military planners. The international aid group described the horrific aftermath, with patients burning in their beds and medical staff suffering severe injuries or death. A subsequent U.S. military investigation attributed the strike to multiple human and systemic errors, with the strike team mistakenly identifying the building as a Taliban target. The Obama administration issued an apology and offered compensation to the victims’ families.

Human rights advocates had hoped the Kunduz debacle would compel concrete steps toward civilian protection in U.S. combat operations. However, within a few years, the issue re-emerged with significant civilian casualties in U.S.-led efforts to dislodge Islamic State extremists from strongholds in Syria and Iraq. A single week in March 2017 saw three separate incidents of mass civilian casualties attributed to U.S. operations: a drone attack on a mosque in Syria reportedly killed around 50, another strike in Syria resulted in 40 deaths in a school sheltering displaced families, and bombing in Mosul, Iraq, led to a building collapse that killed over 100 people taking shelter. An analysis by the Rand Corporation indicated that military leaders in the fight for Raqqa, Syria, "too often lacked a complete picture of conditions on the ground; too often waved off reports of civilian casualties; and too rarely learned any lessons from strikes gone wrong."

The Push for "Do It Right Now"

Under pressure from lawmakers, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis initiated a review of civilian casualty protocols in 2019. While some advocacy groups deemed the review narrowly scoped, it was seen as a step forward. However, the issue subsequently faded from public discourse, overshadowed by the COVID-19 pandemic and landmark racial justice protests.

During the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, a missile strike in Kabul tragically killed an aid worker and nine of his relatives, including seven children. Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin apologized and vowed to "endeavor to learn from this horrible mistake." This incident, alongside a New York Times investigative series on civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes, spurred the adoption of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response action plan in 2022. The following year, upon establishing the new Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, defense officials appointed Michael McNerney, the lead author of the critical RAND report, as its director.

"The strike against the aid worker and his family in Kabul pushed Austin to say, ‘Do it right now,’" Bryant recalled, emphasizing the urgency that arose from that incident.

The initial harm-mitigation teams were integrated with leadership responsible for some of the military’s most sensitive counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering operations, including Central Command, the Joint Special Operations Command, and Africa Command. A former CHMR adviser, who joined in 2024 after a career in international conflict work, expressed initial reassurance at finding a well-funded and expert campaign with a $7 million budget. He recalled a time when he had to "plead with the Pentagon to pay attention," describing the effort as a "back-of-the-envelope thing."

Bryant served as the de facto liaison between the harm-mitigation team and special operations commanders. His notes from a private briefing for aides of Senator Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., reviewed by ProPublica, detail the embrace of the CHMR mission by Admiral Frank Bradley, then head of the Joint Special Operations Command and later promoted to lead Special Operations Command. Bryant’s notes describe Bradley as "incredibly supportive" of the embedded CHMR team and highlight his direction of "comprehensive lookbacks" on civilian casualties in errant strikes, using the findings to mandate changes and introduce training on integrating harm prevention and international law. Bryant considered Bradley a "model."

However, progress remained slow regarding compensation for victims, and some of the new policies proved difficult to monitor independently, according to a Stimson Center report. The CHMR program also faced criticism from those who argued that civilian protections were already adequately addressed by existing laws of war and targeting protocols, suggesting that additional oversight could have a "chilling effect" on commanders’ operational flexibility. Bryant stressed that to keep reforms on track, CHMR advisers would need to overcome a culture of denial among leaders who often prided themselves on precision and moral authority, noting that the "initial gut response of all commands is: ‘No, we didn’t kill civilians.’"

Reforms Unravel Under New Doctrine

As the Trump administration returned to power, pledging significant federal budget cuts, military and political leaders initially sought to preserve the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response framework. CHMR advisers were initially encouraged by Senate confirmation hearings where Trump’s nominees for senior defense posts affirmed their support for civilian protections. General Dan Caine, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote during his confirmation that commanders "see positive impacts from the program." Elbridge Colby, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, stated that it is in the national interest to "seek to reduce civilian harm to the degree possible." Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, head of Central Command, expressed his commitment to integrating CHMR principles "as part of our culture" when questioned about potential cuts.

Despite this high-level support, current and former officials maintain that the CHMR mission was ultimately undermined by Secretary Hegseth’s signature "lethality doctrine." Hegseth, a former Fox News personality and Army National Guard infantry officer, has expressed disdain for rules of engagement and other safeguards, viewing them as constraints on the "warrior ethos." He has also defended U.S. troops accused of war crimes.

Within a month of assuming his role, Hegseth reportedly fired the military’s top judge advocates general (JAGs), who provide legal guidance for operations. Hegseth has characterized these legal officers as "roadblocks" and used the derogatory term "jagoff." At the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, staff reportedly attempted in vain to save the program. Bryant even proposed renaming it the "Center for Precision Warfare" to frame the mission in terms that Hegseth might not consider "woke."

By late February 2025, current and former defense personnel reported that the CHMR mission was in a state of implosion. Shortly before his position was eliminated, Bryant publicly voiced his opposition to the cuts in The Washington Post and the Boston Globe, which he stated led to significant trouble at the Pentagon. He was placed on leave in March, with his security clearance at risk of revocation. Bryant formally resigned in September and has since become a prominent critic of the administration’s defense policies, warning that Hegseth’s disregard for the rule of law and civilian protections is eroding military professionalism.

Bryant expressed dismay at seeing Admiral Bradley, a former supporter of CHMR, defending a controversial "double-tap" strike on an alleged drug boat, which resulted in the deaths of survivors from an initial hit. Legal experts have suggested such strikes could violate the laws of warfare. Bradley did not respond to a request for comment. "Everything else starts slipping when you have this culture of higher tolerance for civilian casualties," Bryant observed.

Concerns were further amplified in early 2025 with the Trump administration’s renewed counterterrorism campaign against Islamist militants in Africa and the Middle East. In April, a U.S. airstrike hit a migrant detention center in northwestern Yemen, killing at least 61 African migrants and injuring dozens more, an incident Amnesty International described as an "indiscriminate attack" that should be investigated as a war crime. Operations in Somalia have also become demonstrably more lethal. In 2024, the last year of the Biden administration, conflict monitors recorded 21 strikes in Somalia with a combined death toll of 189. In the first year of Trump’s second term, the U.S. conducted at least 125 strikes, with reported fatalities reaching as high as 359, according to the New America think tank.

"It is a strategy focused primarily on killing people," stated Alexander Palmer, a terrorism researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Last September, the U.S. military announced an attack in northeastern Somalia targeting an Al-Shabaab weapons dealer. However, villagers on the ground reported that the drone strike killed Omar Abdullahi, a respected elder known as "Omar Peacemaker" for his role as a clan mediator. The U.S. military released no details following the death, citing operational security. "The U.S. killed an innocent man without proof or remorse," Abdullahi’s brother told Somali news outlets. "He preached peace, not war. Now his blood stains our soil."

The Unfulfilled Promise of Prevention

In Iran, former personnel believe the CHMR mission could have made a critical difference. Under the discontinued harm-prevention framework, plans for civilian protection would have commenced months earlier, coinciding with directives to develop a potential Iran campaign. CHMR personnel across commands would have immediately engaged in detailed mapping of the "civilian environment," documenting infrastructure and civilian movements. They would have also meticulously updated the "no-strike list," which designates protected civilian targets like schools and hospitals.

A crucial question remains whether the school in Minab was indeed on the no-strike list. The school is situated mere yards from a naval base belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. While the building was formerly part of the base, visual forensics investigations indicate it has been marked as a school on maps since at least 2013.

"Whoever ‘hits the button’ on a Tomahawk – they’re part of a system," a former adviser commented. "What you want is for that person to feel really confident that when they hit that button, they’re not going to hit schoolchildren."

If safeguards failed and the Defense Department faced a disaster like the school strike, Bryant stated that CHMR advisers would have actively participated in transparent public statements and an immediate inquiry. Instead, he characterized the Trump administration’s response to the attack as "shameful."

"It’s back to where we were years ago," Bryant concluded. If confirmed, "this will go down as one of the most egregious failures in targeting and civilian harm-mitigation in modern U.S. history."