Let's Debate the House GOP's Shabby Treatment of Military Servicemembers

It makes sense to bemoan the House’s breach of bipartisanship on the annual defense bill, but the horrible policy the GOP is trying to advance for our servicemembers is even more disturbing

When earlier this month Speaker Kevin McCarthy allowed amendments concerning abortion, trans health care, and diversity training to be brought to the House floor for votes, he was appropriately criticized for politicizing the traditionally bipartisan Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization Act and possibly putting a six-decade long tradition of annually enacting this legislation at risk. This week, the Senate passed its version of the bill without including these contentious issues. Negotiators will now be tasked with devising legislation to return to each chamber for a final vote.   

Much of the commentary on this episode has been about how the most conservative faction of the House GOP caucus is flexing its muscles and how abandoning disciplined bipartisanship on defense matters may doom the legislation. All true. But there has been very little examination of the actual policies that the GOP is proposing. When you take a close look, it turns out that the party that is constantly telling voters how much it honors our troops is actually treating them quite poorly. 

The critical context for this discussion is that since the 1970s, the United States has had an all-volunteer force. This means that each of the Armed Services needs to recruit young people to sign up to join and then create an employment environment that promotes retention of a high-quality workforce. As such, our military is competing against the private sector in a myriad of ways for the best employees. And it is also important to note that in recent times the military is recruiting from a diminished labor pool because due to obesity and other factors, over 3/4 of American youth do not qualify for military service. DoD experienced one of its worst recruiting years in history in 2022 and is predicted to miss its targets for 2023 as well. 

The other important point of context is that the opportunity to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces is a quintessential aspect of American citizenship. Service is a means for every distinct group of people in our vast and diverse country to demonstrate their pride in country and lay claim to their rightful position as equal members of the American community. So, the story of our Armed Forces, from even before the nation gained independence, is one of expanding who may serve and the military roles they may fill. George Washington first refused, but then allowed, enslaved people and freed slaves to serve in the Continental Army. In 1948, President Truman integrated the Armed Forces by executive order after Congress refused to do so legislatively. In 1992, Bill Clinton ran for president on the platform of reversing the Department of Defense’s policy barring homosexuals from serving in the military. His position faced opposition in Congress, leading to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “compromise” policy being written into law in 1993. That law was repealed in 2011, ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. In 2015, women were permitted to serve in combat units for the first time. A year later, the Pentagon eliminated the ban on transgender people serving in the Armed Forces.

The reality is that we have a diverse force. Currently, about 46% of the U.S. Army is non-white and about 16% are women (other services, especially the Marines, are less diverse). While the military does not collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity, one 2015 study estimated that 6.1% of the service identifies as LGBT. To sustain this force, especially in the face of stiff competition from the private sector – we need to have policies designed to attract and retain diverse servicemembers. The military also has a legal and moral obligation to treat all servicemembers fairly and respectfully. 

With that background in mind, let’s turn to three sets of policies being advanced by the House GOP. 

Access to abortion for servicemembers and their dependents

The Department of Defense has had draconian abortion policies since the early 1980s. Its hospitals are only allowed to perform an abortion if the life of the mother is in danger or if a pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. These policies have been enforced even though thousands of DoD servicemembers and their dependents are stationed overseas in countries where abortion is illegal, unavailable, or unsafe. From 1996 to 2009, only 54 abortions were performed in DoD medical facilities around the world, all reported to be “life of the mother” cases.”

Under this set of policies, servicemembers and their dependents can only access abortion services by taking vacation or unpaid leave, paying for the medical procedure from a non-DoD health care provider and covering all travel expenses out-of-pocket. Women stationed abroad are required to travel back to the United States for the procedure, again, at their own expense. Sick leave can only be used for convalescing from the procedure. These policies apply to the 9.6 million active duty servicemembers, reservists, retired servicemembers, National Guard members, their family members and survivors that are covered under TRICARE, the military health program.

These restrictive policies apply in an institution in which active-duty women servicemembers are 50% more likely to experience unwanted pregnancies than women in civilian life. A report from the Defense Health Board lists “several factors from the military environment” that may contribute to these high rates, including:

·      High rates of rape in the military

·      Lack of comprehensive coverage under the military health insurance program for all forms of contraception

·      Fears of stigma and punishment from asking military health providers information about contraception

Unintended pregnancies were most frequently experienced by young, single, non-white active-duty servicewomen with low educational levels and low ranks in the military.  

Policies that were harsh and punitive to women facing unwanted pregnancies became even more intolerable after the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and many states enacted complete, or nearly complete bans on abortion. Prior to the reversal, women stationed in the United States could seek abortion services from local hospitals and clinics in the state in which they were based. But, after the reversal, a servicewomen stationed, for example, in Fort Hood, Texas (a state that hosts almost 12% of military servicemembers) would have to travel over 500 miles to reach a state where abortion is legal. Even where abortion is legal, there are long waiting lists and state laws sometimes require more than one doctor visit or waiting periods, resulting in multiple days and perhaps weeks to obtain the procedure.  For some women, travel expenses could total well thousands of dollars in addition to the uncovered medical expenses for the abortion. The same policies apply to a pregnant dependent of a male servicemember. 

Last year, Secretary of Defense Austin concluded that the new additional burdens of obtaining abortion services “qualify as unusual, extraordinary, hardship or emergency circumstances” for servicemembers that will “interfere” with the Department of Defense’s ability to “recruit, retain, and maintain the readiness of a highly qualified force.” To remedy these circumstances, he ordered that servicemembers be granted administrative (that is, paid) leave to obtain abortion services and that travel expenses be reimbursed for those who must seek abortion services outside their local duty area.

The House amendment to wipe out Austin’s leave and travel reimbursement policies with respect to abortion services passed the House by a 221-213 margin.  Commenting on the amendment, Senator Tom Cotton characterized travel by servicemembers to seek medical care as “abortion tourism,”  arguing that taxpayers “should not [be] … paying for things that should not be happening in our military.” During the debate on the measure, GOP Rep. Anna Luna claimed the travel policy hurt military readiness because “a servicemember having a child whipped from their womb cannot deploy.” In short, the GOP position is that even though women servicemembers have no choice as to the base they are assigned, servicemembers in states with abortion bans must take unpaid leave and pay out of pocket for their travel costs to obtain a lawful medical procedure.

Health care coverage for gender dysphoria

In July, 2016, the Obama Administration announced its decision to end the ban on military service by transgender people, noting that a key reason for the change was the principle that “Americans who want to serve and can meet the standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so.”  In removing the ban, DoD issued guidance establishing transgender servicemembers’ right “to receive all medical care with dignity and respect,” and requiring military medical facilities to provide servicemembers diagnosed with gender dysphoria counseling, hormone treatments, and transition surgery. 

Five months after taking office, President Trump announced via tweet a reversal of this policy, stating that the government will not “accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”  After a lengthy delay, in 2019, DoD initiated its new policy.  It allowed current servicemembers to continue to serve in their preferred gender and receive medical treatment, but barred individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from enlisting. Confusingly, active servicemembers who were subsequently diagnosed with gender dysphoria were denied medical treatments and forced to serve under their gender assigned at birth. Trump’s policies were reversed by President Biden soon after he took office. DoD policy currently provides that upon a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, a servicemember is entitled to “all medically necessary care.”

The GOP amendment on this topic would gut the concept that transgender servicemembers with a diagnosed medical condition are entitled to medical treatment to treat that condition. It would prohibit the DoD health care system from providing any hormone treatment or sex reassignment surgeries “for the gender alteration of a transgender individual.” The debate on the House floor made clear that the GOP opposition was not based just on opposition to the provision of health care for transgender servicemembers but on allowing them to serve at all. GOP Rep. Matt Rosendale made this abundantly clear, stating “I don’t want someone who doesn’t know if they are a man or a woman with their hand on a missile button.” The amendment passed by a vote of 221-211.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Even though racial progress in the U.S. Armed Forces often preceded advancements in civilian society, pervasive racial discrimination in the Armed Forces is well documented.  Blacks and other minority groups continue to be dramatically underrepresented in the officer corps and among top military leadership.  Although 20% of enlisted troops are Black, Blacks comprise only 9% of the officer corps, and 6.5% of general officers.  The lack of diversity is reflected in a photo posted on Twitter by Secretary of Defense Esper of “top @DeptDefense leadership” visiting the White House in 2019:

But beyond minority underrepresentation, there is substantial testimonial evidence and data of overt racism in the Armed Forces, even 75 years after full integration of all service units. A survey in 2018 found that 36% of all servicemembers polled and 53% of servicemembers of color had “seen examples of white nationalism or ideologically driven racism by their fellow troops.” The Air Force Inspector General reported in 2021 that 40% of Black, “enlisted, officers, and civilians do not trust their chain of command to address racism, bias, and unequal opportunities.” The George Washington Program on Extremism found that 131 of 968 of those prosecuted for offenses relating to the January 6 riot at the Capitol had a military background.

Secretary Austin was so concerned about evidence of extremism in the military that in early 2021 he ordered a day-long “stand-down” for units so commanders could discuss the kinds of activities that were barred by DoD policy and hear from servicemembers about the scope of the problem.

To address many longstanding issues relating to racial and other forms of inequity, the Department of Defense has been working on strengthening diversity and inclusion in the military for decades. In 1971, it established the Defense Race Relations Institute, with the mission of enhancing “mission readiness by fostering positive human relations throughout DoD.” These early efforts led to some diversification of the officer corps but did not address severe underrepresentation of people of color and women among DoD senior leadership. In 2009, Congress established the Military Diversity Leadership Commission, which was tasked with developing diversity and inclusion practices for military leadership and the department. In a 2011 report, the MDLC recommended a paradigm shift from focusing exclusively on representation to “establishing inclusive practices and effectively leading diverse groups.” It defined the concept of “inclusive diversity” for the Department as “the process of valuing and integrating each individual’s perspectives, ideas, and contributions into the way an organization functions and makes decisions; enabling diverse workforce members to contribute to their full potential in collaborative pursuit of organizational objectives.”  Towards the end of the Trump Administration, Secretary Esper issued a key memorandum ordering nine immediate actions “to support a more diverse and inclusive force” and created a DoD organizational structure to bring about the cultural changes called for by the MDLC.  President Biden built on and expanded these efforts significantly upon taking office in 2021.

The House GOP amendments took dead aim at this institutional structure that has been developed on a bipartisan basis over multiple presidential administrations and through many acts of Congress. An amendment by Rep. Ralph Norman would eliminate every office established to “promote diversity, equity, and inclusion” in the Department and terminate all of their employees. It passed 214-213. Rep. Matt Gaetz sought to prohibit any funds to be used to for DEI training, but this amendment failed by a narrow margin. Rep. Chip Roy succeeded in amending the bill to bar the use of funds for the positions of DoD Chief Diversity Officer and Senior Advisor for Diversity. An amendment by Rep. Jim Banks would bar the use of race or ethnicity in admissions to the military academies.  It passed 218-210.

Throughout the debate, DoD’s historical efforts to root out discrimination and enhance diversity were castigated as “social experimentation wrapped in a uniform,” “indoctrination,” “efforts to divvy us up on the basis of race,” and “cancer.” Rep. Doug DeMalfa argued that “diversity is not our strength, it is divisive.” DEI efforts were deemed “a waste of taxpayer dollars” and a diversion from the core DoD mission of creating the “most effective, lethal fighting force on earth.” The anti-DEI advocates made abundantly clear that they believed diversity efforts resulted in unqualified and inferior personnel participating in military service that negatively impacted military readiness and performance. 

Other amendments were explicitly directed at reversing efforts aimed at making the military more open and comfortable for historically discriminated-against groups.  Rep. Norman offered an amendment directed at barring the display of the Pride flag at any DoD facility. It passed 218-213.  Rep. Bob Good attempted to shut down the Commission established by Congress three years ago to rename DoD facilities honoring the Confederacy and persons who served in the Confederacy. The Commission has identified facilities to be renamed (such as the change of Fort Bragg, NC to Fort Liberty) and is in the process of implementing those changes. Good bemoaned the renaming effort as a “tragedy” intended to “rewrite the Nation’s history.” He especially lamented the removals of “famous beautiful” monuments in Richmond glorifying Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, calling the changes a “desecration.” Good’s amendment failed, but still gained the votes of 177 of his GOP colleagues. Finally, Rep. Hageman singled out a group advising Secretary Austin on preventing the spread of white supremacy among servicemembers, known as “the Countering Extremism Working Group,” for special scrutiny. Her amendment demanded that the group produce all the documents it has used in its deliberations to the House Committee on the Weaponization of Government. 

Two other amendments fully embraced the conservative backlash against efforts to address systemic racism in America that arose after the murder of George Floyd and subsequent national mass protests.  One would bar teaching history in DoD schools in any way suggesting that Americans founding documents were racially biased or that racial status has provided advantages or privileges to any individuals. The other would comprehensively bar any race, ethnic or gender-based hiring practices, training, or teaching advocating differential treatment of individuals to remedy societal discrimination. Advocates for the amendments claim they are necessary to counteract “woke” concepts promoted by DoD that were weakening the military and harming recruitment.

*      *     *

Researching these issues and watching hours of House floor debate on the amendments was an instructive but painful experience.

Our military has always been a careful and conservative institution.  It does not develop personnel or health care policies to respond to the trends of the day or political leanings of one administration or the other. The military implements policies that it believes advances the interests of the servicemembers, will promote cohesion and readiness among our troops, and will make the Department of Defense an attractive employment option for all the young people of our country regardless of any factor other than their fitness to serve.

It is sad to see that a large segment of one political party has lost so much trust in institutions – even the beloved U.S. military -- that it would so comprehensively override its judgments and cause such genuine hardship to our current and future servicemembers.