Just like church and state, the military should not be influenced by political agendas or ideologies. The military should be the one aspect of the United States that should always remain apolitical, being deadset and focused on our national security and safeguarding our country’s history and freedom. This means that any and all politicized conversations or initiatives that could affect the military should not impact it. The stakes are simply too high.
However, politicized topics have made their way into military conversations. Particularly, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spoke on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in the military, saying, “I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘our diversity is our strength,’” and “I think our strength is our unity. Our strength is our shared purpose.”
Hegseth’s comments come after President Donald Trump signed new executive orders targeting DEI initiatives across the federal government, banning it outright. Specifically, one executive order that Trump has signed addresses DEI programs in the United States military.
On the White House’s website, the executive order is entitled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force.” The executive order states that it is aimed at eliminating “race-based and sex-based discrimination,” and that it will uphold Trump’s policy that “[T]he Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security with regard to the United States Coast Guard (UCSG), and every element of the Armed Forces should operate free from any preference based on race or sex.”
The executive order also states that it seeks to stop the practice and institutional operations that promote “divisive concepts,” including “gender ideology” and notions that “America’s founding documents are racist or sexist.”
Even further, the very first sentence of the executive order states that it is meant to promote meritocracy, and to undo perpetuated “unconstitutional discrimination” within our fighting forces.
To be clear, the focus of both the executive order and this article is specifically on DEI in the military, not DEI in general. This ongoing political debate is distracting the military from its primary mission: America’s protection.
Hegseth has said in his own words that the one job of the Department of Defense is to be the best at “warfighting,” which is “about readiness; it’s about staying focused.”
The bottom line for the brave men and women who serve our country is that they need to be focused on completing missions that help safeguard our national security.
However, commentary expressed by Jim Fein and Mary Mobley in an article published on The Heritage Foundation’s website suggests that the military’s focus is elsewhere. The authors argue that, “Top officials have set diversity quotas for generals and leadership positions in the military–and they’re willing to sacrifice standards to achieve these quotas.”
Specifically, Fein and Mobley suggest that the Biden administration misappropriated the $86.5 million spent on DEI programs in 2023. The pair base their claim by insisting that the military must “[M]ake the most of the money it receives. That means spending money on projects that will improve national security, not on DEI initiatives that serve as mere virtue signaling.”
Whether or not Fein and Mobley’s assertions are correct or irrelevant, the one thing that beats talk is action, and that seems to be what Washington D.C. is doing with DEI in America.
Since Trump’s election win, Walmart, Amazon, Lowe’s and other companies have all rolled back DEI initiatives. This comes as conservative pushback on DEI has heightened, with Trump recently scaling back federal DEI programs. As it is, three states have banned or limited DEI, 10 have passed related legislation in one chamber and 18 other state legislatures have introduced such bills.
To say the least, the debate surrounding DEI is polarized. The debate is ongoing and lawmakers aren’t helping by vocally going to the extremes. Take, for instance, how Representative Nancy Mace is being targeted by her fellow Republican lawmakers for her takes on DEI, following a rant where she spoke about being the first woman to have graduated from the military academy The Citadel. The messaging on DEI from some Republicans, like Mace in this case, has shown that the conversation is becoming misconstrued, off-topic and partisan to the point where Republicans are eating their own. It’s simply not productive.
Regardless of the partisan-fueled debates on Capital Hill, DEI has demonstrated that it has range. But the debates rarely discuss meritocracy: having the ability, talent and grit to perform. This is what the military thrives on and looks for when promoting and honoring its members. Former President John F. Kennedy is a prime example of this, as he was given honors following his acts of bravery in saving his fellow sailors after his boat was attacked and destroyed by Japanese soldiers in World War II.
The fact is that DEI’s range is colossal in Washington D.C. Look at how in the recent Supreme Court ruling of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the court ruled that race-based admissions and affirmative action policies are unconstitutional and violate Title XI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Or, look at how in Congress, conversations on DEI are presently chaotic and are full of partisanship and grandstanding. This is concerning, particularly because politicians have a say over the military. Whether that be through policies made by a member of the House Armed Services Committee or a change in the military budget in the House Appropriations Committee, the chaos of DEI-focused conversations by politicians could bleed over to directly impact the military in a number of ways beyond these two.
When it comes to the military, the message Washington D.C. should receive on DEI implementation should be: have the political debates, figure out what works and give us the strongest elements so the military can be the best that it can be. Until that happens, the military needs to stay focused solely on warfighting and protecting America.
