Pentagon Secretly Suspended Program to Prevent Civilian Casualties During Combat Operations

The Pentagon has effectively suspended a legally mandated program designed to prevent civilian deaths during military operations.

This was reported by The Guardian.

A report by the Inspector General of the US Department of Defense states that the US Armed Forces no longer have sufficient personnel, tools, and infrastructure to meet the requirements of two federal laws.

These laws require the Department of Defense to maintain existing policies for the protection of civilians and to ensure the operation of the Center of Excellence for Civilian Protection.

Although the program has not been officially canceled, the report mentions the cessation of funding for the data management system, the suspension of the relevant committee’s work, and the loss of a significant portion of specialized personnel, who have been transferred to other positions or dismissed.

The program was launched by then-US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in January 2022 during Joe Biden’s presidency.

Currently, only seven employees remain in the program, who, according to the report, “have no access to any operations” and have been transferred to a “closet office” in Virginia.

The report, published on May 13, indicates that the turning point came in February, when Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby and US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll separately proposed to Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth that the program be scaled back or completely eliminated.

According to the report, one of the proposals called for the complete repeal of the action plan and the corresponding Department of Defense directive. At the same time, without waiting for a final decision, military units began acting as if the cuts had already taken effect.

One representative of the combat command informed the Inspector General that their command had “largely divested itself of the personnel, functions, and responsibilities associated with the program as of March 2025.”

Another source stated that they “did not want to spend resources on activities or take on future obligations regarding a program that may undergo significant changes.”