[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE RISKS OF PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES
IN THE U.S. MILITARY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
THE BORDER, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 11, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-533 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Jimmy Gomez, California
Byron Donalds, Florida Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Kaity Wolfe, Senior Professional Staff Member
Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Minority Member
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Pete Sessions, Texas Dan Goldman, New York
Andy Biggs, Arizona Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Vacancy
Vacancy Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 11, 2024................................. 1
Witnesses
----------
Mr. Will Thibeau, Director, American Military Project
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Lohmeier (Ret.), Space Force Veteran,
Author
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Brigadier General Ty Seidule (Ret.) (Minority Witness), Professor
Emeritus of History, U.S. Military Academy
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Open Letter to the American People from Signatories of the
Declaration of Military Accountability; submitted by Rep.
Biggs.
* Article, FoxNews, ``Air Force goes on DEI hiring spree'';
submitted by Rep. Sessions.
* Class Composition Comparison, West Point; submitted by Rep.
Waltz.
* Memo, re: Department of the Air Force; submitted by Rep.
Waltz.
* Letter, October 17, 2023, from Garcia to Grothman; submitted
by Rep. Garcia.
* Statement for the Record, Blue Star Families; submitted by
Rep. Garcia.
* Exhibit 1, ``What Military Servicemembers Are Saying'';
submitted by Rep. Foxx.
* Questions for the Record: to Brig. Gen. Seidule; submitted by
Rep. Gosar.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Thibeau; submitted by Rep.
Gosar.
* Questions for the Record: to Lt. Col. Lohmeier; submitted by
Rep. Gosar.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
THE RISKS OF PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES
IN THE U.S. MILITARY
----------
Thursday, January 11, 2024
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grothman, Comer, Gosar, Foxx,
Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner, Fallon, Perry,
Garcia, Raskin, Lynch, Goldman, Porter, and Frost.
Also present: Representative Waltz.
Mr. Grothman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on National
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will come to order. I
would like to welcome everybody who is here. Without objection,
the Chair may declare a recess at any time, and without
objection, we are honored to have the Representative Waltz of
Florida waived on to this subcommittee--he has got a lot of
military experience--for the purpose of questioning the
witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to this hearing
before the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border and
Foreign Affairs. Today's hearing is on ``The Risks of
Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military.''
I want to express gratitude to our witnesses for being
here. It is my sincere hope that this hearing provides a
platform for a constructive dialog on the issues that face
today's military.
The questions we intend to address today are not just about
readiness, or the military's personnel system, but how
ideological concerns and debates within civil society are
imported into and impact the military's ability to recruit,
train, and especially operate effectively in a dynamic threat
environment.
The term ``wokeness'' has become a topic of discussion,
both within and outside military circles, and is prompting us
to scrutinize how ideological shifts may impact the readiness
and effectiveness of our armed forces, as well as how our
military is affected once they begin to adapt this kind of woke
ideology.
Our military is grappling with the Biden Administration's
social experiments of integrating principles of diversity,
equity, and inclusion--or what is referred to as ``DEI''--into
their ranks. The Pentagon often fails to recognize the
financial burden these priorities place on taxpayers. DEI
managers are making over $180,000 per year, which in my mind
sends a message in its own right. In fact, the Department of
Defense recently requested $117 million for diversity and
inclusion initiatives as part of the President's fiscal 2024
budget request. Unbelievable.
To be clear, acknowledging the various experiences of our
service members may have the potential to enhance our overall
strength and resilience as a nation and fighting force. At the
end of the day, our differences must yield to what we have in
common--a duty to protect the American freedoms we hold dear.
I have concerns with how the DEI bureaucracy implements its
framework within the military, not to mention I think the DEI
framework is not something that is even necessarily true. I
think it unnecessarily divides people, instead of building up
cohesion. It has the potential to harm unit cohesion and
undermine our soldiers' effectiveness.
Between this and our Secretary of Defense being
incapacitated for several days and not telling anyone, shows a
concern about the seriousness with which the Biden
Administration leads our armed forces.
We need to understand the influence of progressive
ideologies on military policy, and whether progressive
ideologies are even true. We need to understand the extent to
which ideological considerations are shaping decisionmaking
processes.
Our armed services have long been a bastion of meritocracy,
where individuals are promoted based on their skills,
competence, and dedication to duty.
It is crucial that we examine whether the emphasis on
ideological frameworks is affecting the core principles of a
merit-based military. Furthermore, I think it is important to
examine whether this DEI ideology is even factually true or
whether it just serves to divide Americans.
At today's hearing, we aim to understand the implications
of these ideological shifts on military readiness and
effectiveness. Our witnesses will provide insights into how
these ideologies may influence training, operational
procedures, and the overall cohesiveness of our military units.
This hearing is an examination of how ideological
considerations, even well-intentioned ones, erode the
fundamental principles that have historically defined our
military and ensure unit cohesion and force readiness. I think
throughout our history our military understands that we are
fighting for, I think, the greatest country in the world, and I
think all of our soldiers and sailors ought to understand that.
Our focus is to ensure that our military remains a beacon
of excellence, while adapting to the evolving needs of our
Nation and the threats we face from our adversaries. It is
about leveraging the full spectrum of talent within our Nation
for the cohesive strength of our armed forces.
Thank you again for appearing here today, and I look
forward to the discussions that will unfold during today's
hearing.
I now recognize Ranking Member Garcia for the purpose of
making his opening statement.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will just be
honest that I am a bit dismayed and disappointed to be here at
this hearing today. Back in March, we held a hearing called
``Ensuring Force Readiness: Examining Progressivism's Impact on
an All-Volunteer Military.'' And back then in March, I was
dismayed that the Majority chose to ignore what I believe are
the root causes and challenges we are facing to recruitment and
retention in our armed services, such as the need for improved
mental health support for our service members, the continued
need to implement the I Am Vanessa Guillen Act and the need to
crack down on sexual violence, the need for reliable and
reportable childcare for our warfighters who are deployed on a
moment's notice, and so much more, especially when our economy
is creating record numbers of jobs in the private sector and
our military has to compete for top talent.
Now data and evidence show that sexual assault, mental
health care, affordable childcare are all real factors that
affect military recruitment, retention, and readiness. During
that hearing, many of us stressed that to recruit from the most
diverse generation in history we also need a military that
looks like America. We need a cohesive military which does not
allow bigotry within its ranks.
But the hearing also found that attacks on military leaders
and family hardships may be significant factors in dissuading
otherwise motivated young people from pursuing military
careers, and, of course, depriving our country of incredible
talent.
The idea that, quote, ``wokeness'' is a top national
security threat did not make any sense then and does not make
any sense today. And it makes even less sense now given the
world that we face.
Now I believe that overemphasis on this far right talking
point is what inspired Senator Tommy Tuberville to launch his
unprecedented blockade of military officer promotions. Senator
Tuberville intentionally blocked more than 400 general and flag
officers within the DoD from Senate confirmation and promotion.
Even more junior officers lost the opportunity to rise in rank,
with massive impacts on factors such as retention, pay,
pension, and future opportunities. The stunt did far more to
undermine our military readiness than anything else.
And so, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record,
once again, the letter I sent calling for a hearing on national
security implications of the Senator's blockade of military
promotions into the record.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
And I cannot really understand why we are also holding a
second hearing on this topic, when we could be working in a
bipartisan way to address real challenges to our national
security. And Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for our
bipartisan work on our UAP Disclosure Bill, and I think that is
the kind of bipartisan effort that we should be working on
today.
We should also be talking about our real national security
threats. Our allies in Ukraine need immediate aid, we need to
support Taiwan, and provide aid, of course, in the Middle East.
Now we could hold hearings that use data and evidence to
demonstrate that American aid boosts our national security at
minimal cost and highlight how our aid safeguards democracy and
freedom against brutal aggressions. We could even show how
Ukraine aid directly benefits communities all across our
country, who benefit from investment and jobs, and drive how
these investments will uphold our national security in the long
term.
But instead, we are holding Ukraine and other crucial
foreign aid hostage. Instead, many are debating that we bring
back indefinite detention for children at the border, defund
Catholic charities, and end the right to asylum--linking that
to aid impacts our national security. Some also appear to be
using Putin's talking points that want to sell out our allies
and partners. There is obstruction, of course, around issues
around the border, saying that we do not want bipartisan border
security actions, and one of our congressional colleagues even
said the quiet part out loud, and I will quote, ``Let me tell
you. I am not willing to do a damn thing right now to help a
Democrat or to help Joe Biden's approval ratings.'' That is not
the type of bipartisan work that we need on this issue, and yet
here we are investigating wokeness.
Now it is not wokeness that is threatening our national
security, whatever that word actually means. The real threat to
our security is a far right, extreme, obstruction of
dysfunction and culture war stunts.
This hearing is disappointing, but I look forward to
working with our Chairman and hope there can be bipartisan
solutions.
I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. I am pleased to introduce our witnesses
today. Our first witness is Will Thibeau, Director of the
American Military Project at the wonderful Claremont Institute,
where he works on analyzing the institutional integrity of the
U.S. military. He also as experience serving in Iraq in the
75th Ranger Regiment as a platoon leader and company executive
officer.
The next witness is Matt Lohmeier, former U.S. fighter
pilot and former commander with the U.S. Space Force. He is
also a best-selling author and consultant on defense-related
issues.
Our final witness is Ty Seidule, a retired U.S. Army
brigadier general and professor of history at the U.S. Military
Academy. He is also a visiting professor at the Hamilton
College, and in 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin
appointed him to the National Commission on Base Renaming.
I welcome each of you here today and look forward to your
testimony.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), I will have the witnesses
please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Thibeau. I do.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. I do.
Gen. Seidule. I do.
Mr. Grothman. Let the record show all the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You may take your seat.
We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your
written statements, and they will appear in full in the hearing
record. Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that when it is on the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes the light will turn yellow, which means
you have 1 minute left. When the red light comes on your 5
minutes have expired, and we ask you to wrap up as quickly as
possible.
I now recognize Mr. Thibeau for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF WILL THIBEAU
DIRECTOR
AMERICAN MILITARY PROJECT
THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE
Mr. Thibeau. Good morning, Chairman Grothman, Ranking
Member Garcia, Members of the Subcommittee, and my fellow
panelists.
It is my contention that the military must only consider
factors of personnel, programs, and policy that genuinely
better the armed forces' ability to fight and win our Nation's
wars. Merit must not be the first consideration for this
analysis, but the exclusive lens through which elected
officials and military leaders make these kinds of decisions.
Diversity is an ideology that exists in our social mores as
something that the military must embrace as a point of fact, as
a principle, as opposed to just a byproduct of selecting the
best people for the job. It is as if the armed forces march to
the beat of a corporate or university drum.
In reality, though, the existence of a professional,
permanent standing military demands that the institution exists
apart from ideologies and politics prevalent in modern-day
American, regardless of their political affiliation. And
therefore, the military must balance functional
considerations--again, those capabilities required to fight and
win wars--with social considerations or those political and
ideological realities which define American life for the rest
of us.
Increasingly though, objective military professionalism is
now seen as one factor among many that allow leaders to, quote,
``comprehensively evaluate a person, system, or policy,'' this,
of course, being a euphemism for innate characteristics like
race or sex. This programmatic consideration of these innate
characteristics is toxic because it redefines the concept of
merit-based standards. When diversity goals exist for military
units or the service academies, standards become minimum
expectations to meet before fully evaluating other parts of a
participant's career or life. Standards are no longer how the
military selects the best, based on an order of merit list, but
just how you get in the door.
The mere factor of political considerations outside
military competence demands that human characteristics one does
not choose about themselves, become critical filters for
military decisions. Consideration for diversity is one mark of
the blend that the old historian, Samuel Huntington's
``military mind'' made, with the hallmarks of a society that
are built around different ideals than that which makes the
military successful.
Despite the Army's current recruiting slogan, the military
is not a place where you can be all you can be. Instead, it
should be a time of service and a career for our Nation where
one gives all there is to give, no matter the cost. Our
military is filled with men and women who live by this
principle, but our policies and slogans should reflect this
ethic of service.
At stake, though, is much more than the relative quality of
military units. The integrity of our republic is intentioned
with a military that evaluates matters of politics and
identity. When standards become minimum expectations, they are
not markers of achievement to select the best.
In other sectors of society, the consequences of shirking
the exclusivity of merit amount to a bad hire in the finance
department or the wrong university president, or maybe a missed
revenue projection that last fiscal quarter, but the military
is and should be different. History is littered with examples
of militaries whose consideration of political ideology
precipitated a collapse in military professionalism, led to
defeats on the battlefield, and all of which served as a
precursor to the collapse of those nations. America should not
wait to find out if we can outrun the drumbeat of such history.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to the conversation.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Lohmeier.
STATEMENT OF LT. COL. MATTHEW LOHMEIER (RET.)
FORMER COMMANDER
U.S. SPACE FORCE
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Good morning. My name is Matt Lohmeier,
and I am an Air Force Academy graduate, former F-15C fighter
pilot, and was a Lieutenant Colonel and Commander in the Space
Force.
In 2021, I was fired from my command for writing a book,
``Trying to Reverse the Trend of the Overt Politicization of
the Uniformed Services.'' Specifically, I criticized the
military's diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings, which,
at my own base, were illegally occurring despite an executive
order from the Commander in Chief. The diversity, equity, and
inclusion industry is steeped in critical race theory and is
rooted in anti-American Marxist ideology. I watched DEI
trainings divide our troops ideologically and, in some cases,
sow the seeds of animosity toward the very country they had
sworn an oath to defend.
Before writing that book, I submitted a formal written
complaint to the Space Force Inspector General's Office
detailing that such violations were occurring, including
illegal race-based discrimination, but my complaint was never
investigated and was later dismissed by then-Lieutenant General
Stephen Whiting, whom the Senate just confirmed for his fourth
star. After 2 months, I received a written dismissal of my
complaint from General Whiting.
Personally, I have always advocated for a non-political
military work environment.
Today, I am here to testify about the ongoing Marxist-
inspired efforts to subvert and weaken our military and broader
American society. We often refer to these efforts as wokeism,
but it is also a culture war. Yet, even in this Committee,
there are differing views about whether there is such a thing
as a ``culture war'' underway.
Some Members of this Committee have been outspoken critics
of DEI initiatives, to include CRT, drag shows on military
bases, trans activism, LGBTQ pride celebrations, and woke
military recruiting videos, all things that are visible
components of an ongoing culture war.
Ranking Member Garcia, as he just mentioned, on the other
hand, and asserted as recently as 2 weeks ago, says that the
culture wars are, quote/unquote, ``phony'' and are merely a
political talking point of Republicans.
It is nothing, if not incredible, for a Member of this
Subcommittee to assert that culture wars are ``phony'' while
another Member, who is not present at the moment, of this
Committee is a member of the so-called progressive ``Squad,''
was herself a Black Lives Matter organizer and activist, an
organization whose publicly avowed ideology is Marxism, and
whose activist ambition is social and cultural revolution.
Service members who wear the uniform of their country do
not want to see these things in the military workplace. They do
not want to see them at their bases. In most cases, this is
true regardless of their race or their political worldview.
Despite that reality, Pentagon officials requested $140
million to expand woke diversity initiatives in Fiscal Year
2024, double what it has been the previous 2 years. There are
few things taxpayers such as myself feel less essential to the
mission of the United States military than expanding diversity
mandates and indoctrination.
And now an important point. Such aggressively opposed
ideological worldviews competing for institutionalization
through policy epitomizes and formalizes what is properly
termed a culture war. The fact that these debates now infect
the U.S. military workplace is an offense to people like me who
love their country and all people, regardless of race, gender,
sexual preference, or background.
I would like to briefly draw attention to two of a handful
of exhibits I have submitted for the Committee's review and for
entry into the official record of today's hearing.
The first is a 100-page document which includes real-world
unsolicited feedback from military service members. I submit it
for the record because to spend even a few minutes with the
document is to get a sense for how DEI trainings are hurting
morale, dividing and distracting troops, disincentivizing
Americans from service, and thereby destroying our recruiting
and retention efforts.
The second is a letter signed by 185 retired general and
flag officers, previously sent to leaders in the House, which
they did, in fact, receive. Despite their warning about DEI's
divisive impacts in the military workplace and their request
for Congress to end funding for all such initiatives, the
Congress ultimately did not use its power to put an end to DEI
funding in the recently approved NDAA. Thank you to those of
you, by the way, who tried to introduce useful legislation. The
men and women who sent that letter raised the warning voice and
tried their best to respectfully influence our Nation's
lawmakers.
I said in my book, back in 2021, that if we did not abandon
the diversity and inclusion trainings then we would see
unprecedented ``recruitment and retention woes.'' That has been
true, and we have seen as a nation that it is not getting any
better, hence the need for a hearing like this.
I also said that unless we abandon our present hate-filled
and divisive path, and repent as a Nation, we will destroy
ourselves, and I reaffirm that view here today, and I am
grateful to answer any questions this Subcommittee may have for
me. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Seidule.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GEN. TY SEIDULE (RET.)
VISITING PROFESSOR OF HISTORY
HAMILTON COLLEGE
PROFESSOR EMERITUS HISTORY
WEST POINT
Gen. Seidule. Chairman Grothman and Ranking Member Garcia
and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak
to the committee.
I served in the U.S. Army for 36 years. My wife is an Air
Force brat, daughter of a fighter pilot. During our career, she
supported families in peace and war. For that entire time, we
lived on Army posts and one Navy base, raised our two boys. My
son, Peter, who is with me today, served in the First Cavalry
Division. We are an Army family for life.
I have three points to make today. First, the United States
Armed Forces are the best in the world because we reflect and
represent the greatest country in the world. Diversity is the
military's strength because diversity is America's strength.
Second, the military makes significant social changes
primarily when Congress demands it. When President Truman
ordered the military to desegregate in 1948, it did not really
happen until the 1970s, when Congress demanded it. The military
reacts to Congress, not the other way around.
Third, the military's half-century commitment to equal
opportunity and diversity has created a more lethal, effective,
and cohesive force. In 1971, the military was falling apart.
Race relations were at its nadir, and drug use at its peak.
Over the next 20 years, DoD instituted and internalized a
culture of diversity that transformed the military. Diversity
has worked for over 50 years.
For the last half of my career, I taught history at West
Point and studied the history of our Army. In fact, I brought,
for both the Chair and Ranking, the West Point History of the
Civil War, that we wrote while I was there.
In 1948, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order
9981, integrating the U.S. military. It could not go through
Congress because segregationists blocked civil rights
legislation.
Without laws, the military slow-rolled integration. The
last segregated military unit disbanded in 1954. In 1963, ten
states still had zero Black National Guardsmen. As late as
1969, Mississippi had one Black National Guardsman--not 1
percent, one.
In the 1960s, the Army had 3 percent Black officers, and
the Navy and the Marine Corps 0.2 percent. Black service
members could not rent houses outside some bases. The children
of Black service members still went to segregated schools as
late as 1969.
By the early 1970s, the effect of the Vietnam War, drug
use, and racial prejudice had created a broken military. The,
quote/unquote, ``race problem'' threatened our ability to
defend the Nation. In 1971, senior civilian leaders created the
Defense Race Relations Institute. They mandated race relations
training for the entire force.
Recruiting for the all-volunteer force forced the military
to integrate and to try to solve the race problem. It worked,
imperfectly. Less than 20 years after the defeat in Vietnam,
the U.S. military shined again. In 1991, during Desert Storm,
we destroyed the fourth-largest army in the world in days, and
that army had 31 percent African American NCOs.
The success of equal opportunity policy saved us after the
defeat in Vietnam, created the all-volunteer force, and led us
to victory. I know. I commanded a diverse cavalry troop in the
82d Airborne Division during the Gulf War.
By law, women were not allowed to serve in tank, infantry,
and cavalry regiments for most of my career. It is just un-
American and ineffective. When the Army deploys, it fights on
land, and eight billion people reside on land, 51 percent of
whom are women. We must have women in the force at all ranks.
At West Point, I taught a cadet who was unable to follow
her dream to be an infantryman. While she was a Rhodes Scholar,
the combat exclusion ended. She rebranched infantry, graduated
from Ranger School, and commanded an infantry company. She was
the toughest, brightest cadet I met in 20 years.
When I commanded a battalion, we suffered under ``Don't
Ask, Don't Tell,'' a policy that forced service members to lie.
A friend deployed to Iraq. Her partner and their children could
not access military facilities--no commissary, no health care,
no childcare. Now, because Congress ended ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell,'' we have another proud military family.
In both my experience and my study of history, diversity
policies, equal opportunity policies are neither progressive
nor political. They are proven national defense strategies that
have made our military more effective and our country safer for
over 50 years.
Thank you again for allowing me to join you today in the
People's House.
Mr. Grothman. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. We
are going to start with Mr. Thibeau.
As you mentioned, the Department of Defense is requesting
another $114 million for DEI initiatives. This is in addition
to $90 million already dedicated. We mentioned that these DEI
professionals were making well into six figures.
Is this bureaucracy necessary? Could you comment on it?
What do they do?
Mr. Thibeau. It is a good question what they do, Mr.
Chairman. The problem I have is the policies that result from
such a bureaucracy. And there is, like you alluded to in your
opening remarks, a lot of well-intentioned training, perhaps
some of which is necessary. But what is not necessary are race-
and sex-based quotas that are prevalent in at least two
branches of the military. And if it is a bureaucracy that
serves to fulfill those policies that I think do more than
simply educate people about bias or promotion equal opportunity
but, in fact, promote a system of race-and sex-based
discrimination, that is problematic, and they should not be
receiving any money. But we should be thinking about those
policies that are more than just the promotion of diversity but
are actually an alteration to the personnel program in the
military.
Mr. Grothman. Have you seen people promoted--and if Mr.
Lohmeier wants to jump in here, he can as well--have you seen
people promoted or let into the military academies who are not
the most meritorious because of this DEI ideology?
Mr. Thibeau. So, you know, I would never impugn someone's
promotion or their selection. I take, you know, a person that
wears a uniform with the integrity that it comes with. But what
is problematic is when West Point, for example, has racial
goals for every admissions class, and admissions leaders are
evaluated whether or not they meet race-based goals. I do not
know what the difference is between a goal and a quota, and to
me, we should do more to perhaps promote cohesive teams without
implementing a personnel system that, again, alters the nature
of how merit defines personnel policy.
Mr. Grothman. Does this ideology create a mindset in which
people view themselves as members of a subgroup or identify
based upon where their grandparents or great-grandparents were
born?
Mr. Thibeau. Perhaps. You know, when I was in the Army just
a few years ago, we got training on our conduct, and how it was
unacceptable to harass someone, to harm someone. And it seems
there are some examples where there is now training on what you
believe and how you have----
Mr. Grothman. Could you get in trouble by solely pushing an
ideology based on merit? Would that be a check against you, you
think, in the military today?
Mr. Thibeau. You know----
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Lohmeier wrote a book on it.
Mr. Thibeau. Yes. I think he would be better suited to
speak on this. But I have heard from a number of, you know,
friends and folks who want to speak out, that there is a
pervasive concern about speaking out for the genuine integrity
of merit as the foundation for military.
Mr. Grothman. I recently talked to somebody who wanted to
leave the military because of this ideology.
We will move on to Mr. Lohmeier. Do you feel promotional
decisions are being made primarily on diversity as opposed to
pure merit in today's military?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. I do not think that promotion decisions
are being made writ large based on solely diversity, for the
purposes of diversity. I think that we have got tremendous
leaders in the military overall. I think that we still care a
great deal about merit, and that these policies that we are
here to discuss today, however, do muddy the waters, and we do
establish quotas.
And I want to provide one example that Will just commented
on that I experienced while I was in command in the Space
Force. I had young people, underrepresented groups--that means
non-White--coming to me and expressing their dismay, and what
was the word that the ranking member used?--disappointment that
they could no longer tell themselves. I do not know what their
political affiliation was. I do not know what their religious
worldview was. I do know what their ethnicity was, and they
came to me expressing their disappointment that, ``Hey, look,
my entire career I have been promoted based on my skill, my
ability to execute a mission, and I am not sure, moving
forward, whether or not I will be able to tell if I was
promoted based on the way I look, my accidentals.'' And I can
provide a lot of examples of that kind of thing going on.
I can also tell you that we have had a failed pilot
training experiment. As recently as last year, the American
pilot training class--it was in 2021, actually--in which we
chose those selected for that pilot training class in Texas
based on their gender and their ethnicity so that we could make
the pilot training class look more like the United States of
America. That did not turn out well, and so we should look into
that as well.
Mr. Grothman. Could we say what did not turn out well?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Well, performance suffered, and that is
the point. As an instructor pilot in the T-38, I trained young
men and women from our allied partners and from foreign
militaries. Like the general here, I served with foreign
militaries. I did an exchange to the People's Liberation Army
Air Force Academy in Kaohsuing, China, when we still did that.
And I will tell you, we do have the best military on the Earth.
It is because there is a naturally occurring diversity, in the
Defense Department especially, that we allow in a merit-based
selection system, promotion system, and so forth, so that the
best can be placed in these various positions that we hope they
will use to execute a mission in defense of our country.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. OK, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
our witnesses also for being here.
General Seidule, thank you for joining us today. I
appreciated your testimony especially, and I want to thank you
for the decades of service, of course, to our Nation. I want to
start by just getting a few facts out of the way quickly.
I am sure anyone who saw the movie ``Oppenheimer,'' which
was my favorite movie of the year, is familiar with the Red
Scare, and obviously you, as a historian, also are familiar
with the Army McCarthy hearings, which seem to be replayed over
and over again in this House. I am disappointed that some of my
colleagues seem to also want to replay those hearings and those
scare tactics.
But since you are here, I just want to ask you very
clearly, is the military being destroyed by Marxist ideology?
Gen. Seidule. No, it is not, and I do not really even
understand how you can say it is Marxist. At least, I studied
Marxism, and I do not understand how it relates at all.
Mr. Garcia. I agree with you, sir. In your experience as a
professor also at West Point, and in your 36 years of service
in uniform, did you see any evidence of leftist indoctrination?
Gen. Seidule. No.
Mr. Garcia. How about of critical race theory?
Gen. Seidule. No.
Mr. Garcia. Have you ever seen ANTIFA infiltrating our
military?
Gen. Seidule. No.
Mr. Garcia. Well, thank you, General, and I am sure we can
all feel a bit better knowing that there is no large communist
menace or ANTIFA or others plotting to overthrow the U.S.
military, which we know remains the strongest in the world, and
we all, I think, in a bipartisan way, agree that we have the
best military in the world and that we are very proud of.
Now General, in all seriousness, can you explain why
policies that promote a military that reflects the diversity of
our country and allows everyone to serve, no matter who they
love, one that protects female soldiers from harassment, and
actually promotes and improves our national security, how does
that improve our actual military?
Gen. Seidule. Thank you, Congressman. I really believe that
when we look at a period before we had this, which is the
1960s, and see how terrible the military was, and the military
imploded without that. And if we have an Army--that is the one
I am familiar with--that has, right now, over 20 percent
African American and yet have almost no leadership in that
role, then we are going to have problems.
We do not have a quota system. I was on the Admissions
Committee at West Point. We do not have quotas there. But we do
want to make sure that we look like our client. Our client is
the American people, and we want to make sure we reflect that.
I have found that diversity policies make us a stronger
nation and a stronger country, and I am unfamiliar with
anything that maybe diversity policy somehow is going to melt
our brains in some way when we take them. That has not been my
experience.
Mr. Garcia. And I would agree. I mean, it is clear that a
more diverse military is good for our national security and is
good as a reflection of the whole country. And I think the
question is, do we want a military that actually reflects the
entire country?
Yes, as an LGBTQ American myself, I also understand very
clearly that it was not that long ago that an openly gay
person, a person from my community, could not contribute their
talents in the military. But it has been changes to policy and
implementation that have made our military more reflective of
who we are as a society. And so, I appreciate your comments.
General, can you remind us about some of the challenges our
military has had to overcome as it relates to segregation and
as it relates to racial tensions within ranks?
Gen. Seidule. Yes. Remember, we were a segregated Army
really until the 1970s. We had very few cadets at West Point.
We had only 23 naval midshipmen in 1970--that is 0.5 percent.
We continued to have very low levels of general officers in the
Army and in all services into the 1990s and beyond. So, we have
always had a problem making sure that the Army leadership, or
the military leadership, reflects the enlisted ranks. And when
we do not do that, we have problems, and we saw that in the
1960s and the 1970s. It is the same thing with other
underrepresented minorities.
But remember, it is this body that changed it. It ended
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' It brought women to West Point. It
ended the combat exclusion. Congress is the one that did that.
Congress is the one that really changes the military.
Mr. Garcia. And General, would you agree that it has been,
like you said, it has been laws, it has been the intervention
by Congress, it has been policy changes, that have actually had
to be forced sometimes on the military, to actually improve
diversity amongst its ranks?
Gen. Seidule. It has only been that, usually. We did not
integrate when there was an executive order. It was only when
Congress did, in the 1973 Equal Opportunity Act, that really
started that and put equal opportunity people in every
battalion in the Army.
Mr. Garcia. And so, I think it is pretty clear that in
order to achieve a military that reflects the rest of the
country, Congress needs to push and create action, and I
appreciate all of the efforts that have happened in the past to
actually create a military that reflects the country. And this
idea that we should go backward or that we should not embrace
diversity to me is totally insane and crazy.
Finally, what actually poses a bigger military threat to
national security, policies to promote cohesion and tolerance
and diversity within our military or a historic disruption to
officer promotions caused by Senator Tuberville's publicity
stunt?
Gen. Seidule. Senator Tuberville, I think Senator Sullivan
probably said it best on the Floor. Why punish people who have
seriously sacrificed for America? Why punish patriotic military
members over a policy dispute they had nothing to do with and
cannot fix? This is a huge readiness challenge and a huge
morale challenge. And yet, amazingly, not one member of those
general officers ever made a public complaint about it. It
shows the professionalism of our general officer corps that no
one made a complaint despite the disruption and cruelty of that
policy by Senator Tuberville.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir, and again I reiterate that that
is the hearing we should be having is on that enormous
disruption that happened in the Senate and how the House can
help rectify that.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lt. Col. Lohmeier, thank
you for your service and for being here today.
In 2021, the United States Military Academy, West Point,
taught cadets critical race theory through a seminar titled
``Understanding Whiteness and White Rage.'' At an Armed
Services Committee hearing earlier this year, or last year,
former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark
Milley, was questioned about teaching critical race theory at
the service academies. General Milley defended the practice,
saying he thought it was important for those in uniform to be,
quote, ``open-minded and openly read,'' end quote. He went on
to state, quote, ``I want to understand White rage, and I am
White,'' end quote.
In your experience as a squadron commander with U.S. Space
Force would learning about Whiteness and White rage help
promote unit cohesion or a team-centered culture?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. The answer is anyone who is focused on
warfighting does not naturally think to talk about these things
in the military workplace. We are focused on a particular
mission in defense of the country, to deter conflict, and to
win our Nation's wars.
I do want to make one additional point, if I may, that the
General has just explained that he never saw critical race
theory in his time at West Point or in his lengthy, honorable
military career. In doing research for my book that got me
fired, I found that West Point cadets, who had recently
graduated--these are impressive people, Black, White, clearly
leftist in their political worldview--had promoted a 40-page
policy proposal, is what it was called, that I consider
communist's creed, anti-American, race-baiting, accusing
leaders at West Point of failing the American people,
criticizing West Point as an institution for racism,
criticizing them for failing the Army, and that they would
continue to fail the Army. What I found in that document is
that this General's work is quoted throughout the entire 40
pages.
So, you cannot say that you have never been exposed to
critical race theory when a bunch of left-wing, Marxist-leaning
students attack the West Point Military Academy, relying on
your work. And so, I would be curious to find out if they
consulted with him in the production of that 40-page policy
proposal to topple statues at West Point, to rename buildings.
When that kind of invitation came to me, as a commander, to
rename streets and buildings, everyone at the base was allowed
to populate the Excel spreadsheet that came to use as a tasker
from the Pentagon.
And I saw George Washington's name on that list because
ideology that poisons the mind does not disambiguate between
racists, evil men, and good men, and patriots. What they did is
they said he is a founder, he is White, I hate him, and we
would like to remove his name from buildings and streets. This
is the kind of thing that ideology does to the military. It
divides people. And the best evidence we have seen so far--
excuse me, 10 more seconds--is the recent testimony from
university presidents who tried to excuse and contextualize
genocidal rhetoric. And what CRT, diversity, equity, and
inclusion mandates, and Marxist ideology do to a university
president, or to the Chinese PLA, they will do to an American
service member. And I have seen it firsthand.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. I think it would be wise for the
Committee to followup on the report that you are talking about,
so I hope we will be able to do that.
According to the Department of Defense website, its mission
is to, quote, ``provide the military forces needed to deter war
and ensure our Nation's security,'' end quote. Do you think
that teaching our future military leaders about Whiteness and
White rage will better prepare them to deter war and defend our
nation?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. No, I do not.
Ms. Foxx. And do you believe promoting divisive concepts--
you have, I think, indicated this--like critical race theory
have an impact on military recruitment and retention?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Well, I have got some polling data here
that if we have time I can cite. But this is one of the
prevalent themes that shows up among active-duty service
members who have been polled about their concerns about the
direction the military is headed, why they are choosing to
leave the service, and young Americans, why they are choosing
not to join. They sometimes call it wokeness--that is
colloquial--but they specifically, if they know what they are
talking about, refer to critical race theory, and if you know
what you are talking about you know that it is rooted in
Marxist ideology.
Ms. Foxx. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record any document that Mr. Lohmeier
has such as that survey, in the minutes of this hearing.
Mr. Grothman. Agreed.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Yes, I can--I am sorry. You did not ask
me to speak.
Ms. Foxx. Well, I am just going to ask one more question.
Are there specific recommendations you have for maintaining a
strong and cohesive military culture while addressing concerns
about ideological influences?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Yes, ma'am. I think every American
citizen, veteran or having never served, looks to the Congress
to use the power of the purse to hold their military
accountable. But we also need brave men and women in uniform to
respectfully give feedback, use their voice, and stand on their
principle. We do not all have to agree, but we do have to agree
that the mission of the United States military is paramount,
and merit-based selection and promotion is the only effective
principle to keep a strong military.
I do not care what people's view are on diversity, equity,
and inclusion. I really do not. But we cannot use our
individual political or social or cultural worldview to shape
military selection processes, of all institutions. The long-
trusted U.S. military must remain a merit-based system.
Otherwise, you will lose that system.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to see if we
can find some common ground here. Mr. Thibeau, I heard you say
a little earlier that you support diversity as at least one
variable to focus on to either admit students in the service
academies, or officers evolving, officer promotion. Is that
right?
Mr. Thibeau. What I said, Mr. Goldman, is that I am willing
to accept and support diversity as a byproduct of good military
policy. It is not something we should--it is certainly not
something we should avoid, but it is not something that the
military should cater policies to promote. That----
Mr. Goldman. So, do you think that diversity of backgrounds
is beneficial to the military?
Mr. Thibeau. As it relates to a person's ability to do a
job in the military, yes. If a capability does not exist in the
military and we need someone with a more diverse background to
do that job, then yes, it is important. But what I do not think
that means is that a person's skin color is relevant to those
jobs.
You know, in the House Armed Services Committee----
Mr. Goldman. I hear you, and I want to just followup on
that because I think there are some contextual things that we
need to talk about here because you and Mr. Lohmeier are
talking about merit-based, merit-based, and focusing on that.
But, you know, when you look at the history of discrimination
in the military, what you have to consider is that everybody
does not start from the same place. So, Mr. Seidule's family
growing up with a general in the military has advantages in
terms of entering the military that someone whose family does
not have would not have. You agree with that, right?
Mr. Thibeau. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. OK. So, if the military was segregated, if
non-Whites and women were not allowed, if the LGBTQ community,
because of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'', were not allowed, you
therefore understand how those people from those different
groups are not starting at the same place in terms of
evaluating, quote, ``merit-based,'' right?
Mr. Thibeau. But Congressman, I think that is a false
binary. The choice is not between discriminate against non-
Whites and, you know, chose anyone but the best----
Mr. Goldman. I am not talking about discriminating. I mean,
there are only a certain number of people that can be admitted
to a class, that can be promoted. And if you are basically
saying that you cannot consider anything else other than what
you call pure merit--and there is no definition for pure
merit--you are necessarily perpetuation discrimination that has
occurred for generations.
And when you start to see things such as government
reviews, the Air Force independent review that said 40 percent,
in 2020 and 2021, 40 percent of Black and African American
service members indicated a lack of trust in their chain of
command to address racism, bias, and unequal opportunities, you
are necessarily not acknowledging, not addressing what is a
fundamental problem not only for retention but also for
promotion. And if women are leaving the service 28 percent more
because of sexist culture, family planning, or sexual assault,
that has to be addressed.
I do not believe you are sitting here and saying that it is
OK. You mentioned something about you support training on
harassment. But if there is implicit or explicit racism or
discrimination you would agree that has no place in the
military, right?
Mr. Thibeau. Of course.
Mr. Goldman. OK. There needs to be training because a lot
of people do not know what that means, and they often do not
know that what they are saying is actually discriminatory. So,
there needs to actually be training so that everyone, from
every walk of life in this country, can have an opportunity to
participate, to represent our country, to be in the military.
And the problem that we run into when we try to say purely
race-neutral, merit-based--and, you know, again, once again we
are obviously talking about a disproportionate number of White
people, primarily, who are in positions of authority, who are
elevating people, who are admitting people--if they are not
trying to address some of the historical wrongs to give people
who have not had that access to the military, to this
opportunity, give them that opportunity, then we are just going
to perpetuate the historical discrimination forever.
So, I am not saying merit does not matter. I think it
absolutely matters. And I certainly understand Mr. Lohmeier's
point that we do not want to put people who are unprepared in
bad situations. But to simply say that diversity should have no
impact whatsoever on our military will continue to perpetuate a
discrimination that is unfortunately embedded in our military's
history.
And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Next, we have Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, God bless
you for your service. I really, really appreciate your
sacrifices on behalf of this Nation.
As often as is the case, my position here, up on this dais,
my 5 minutes, most of it will be spent correcting, in my
opinion, the record of the things that have been said previous
as opposed to the questions I might have asked each of you. So,
I am going to go through a couple of things here, and maybe it
is not only correction, but it is clarification of the record,
as I would like to say it.
Mr. Seidule--is that how you say your name?
Gen. Seidule. Sid-u-lee.
Mr. Perry. Sorry about that. My apologies.
Gen. Seidule. My mother got it wrong for years.
Mr. Perry. I am sure. The nametag was probably difficult. I
just want to make the remark and the point that the
segregationists that blocked integration were decidedly in one
political party. And I think it is important to note that
because they will be up here acting like they never did that,
and it is important for the historical record. As a fan of
history, you can appreciate that there are consequences that
America cannot forget, and should not forget.
Regarding diversity, I hear that all the time, diversity is
our strength, diversity is our strength. And, Mr. Thibeau, you
just answered a bunch of questions about that, and it is a
strength when we have different viewpoints about how to solve a
problem. But if we are all in a rowboat, there are four of us
in a rowboat and we all have a different idea of where we are
going and a different oar, diversity is not going to be much of
a strength, right? We are all going to be rowing in four
different directions.
So, diversity is a strength if we are all pointing in the
same direction. Otherwise, it is not a strength. And I do not
know how that can be refuted, but if somebody wants to, they
are welcome to do that.
Regarding the comment that there was a defeat in Vietnam, I
want to make sure--because I grew up during that time, as you
did, I imagine, sir, just gauging from seeing you here--it was
not a military defeat. It was people like Walter Cronkite and
other leftists and political activists in the United States of
America that imposed that defeat.
And it is important to me. I revered my uncle when he came
home from Vietnam in his uniform as a guy who served and the
sacrifices he made, and it colored my decision to join the
military. And it is important, again, for the record, to remind
Americans that the military did not lose that war. That was a
politically lost war, and I do not want that to be attributed
or ascribed to the military.
Regarding the McCarthy hearings, I want to remind everybody
in the room that while I disagreed with his tactics, as most
Americans did, if they read Whittaker Chambers' book,
``Witness,'' and if they go through the Venona transcripts,
almost every single person he named was a communist
sympathizer, organizer, and involved in the subversion of the
U.S. Government. Let us not forget that.
Regarding those folks that were held up by Senator
Tuberville, and the fact that they did not complain. Well, good
for them, because when we wear the uniform, yours is not to
question why, yours is just to do and die. And we do not talk
about political things because it is against the regulation.
So, they were not doing anything grandiose. They were doing
their duty, as they should. And Tuberville was doing his duty,
as he should. The policies in the military regarding the
subject at hand are wrong, and thank God somebody was willing
to fight for them.
There is a specific definition for merit. I would ask my
colleague. He can go look up any search engine and see it. I
joined the military, and I loved my time in the military. It
defined me, and I defined it. And it was based on merit. And I
did not have a leg up. I knew my uncle, who served in Vietnam.
But when I raised my hand, as an E-1, no one knew anybody I
knew, and it did not matter. And I loved the fact that even
coming from a broken home, with no connections, and no clue
about anything, I could work my tail off and make something of
myself.
And even though I did not have my commander's
recommendation to go to Officer Candidate School, I got into
Officer Candidate School, and I became the president of my
class. And even though I did not have a recommendation to go to
flight school, where you are measured within a tenth of a
point, I graduated second in my class, alongside soldiers and
service members from the Air Force Academy, and West Point, of
which I was not allowed to go to because I was not good enough.
And I was not good enough. But the point is, I worked my tail
off because it was based on merit, and I could make something
of myself.
And while I complained to myself--I did not complain to
anybody else when I did not, when I tried to get an inter-
service transfer from the Army to the Air Force because instead
of flying Cobras, I wanted to fly F-16s, and a friend of mine,
a friend of mine, he got to go. He was a Black man. But when I
applied to the same unit I was told, ``Sorry. You do not fit
the position.'' You know what I did? I got after my job as a
Cobra pilot. I got after my job, and I went on with my life. I
did not cry my eyes about it.
There are a bunch of people that are up on this dais today
that are going to complain to you and tell you about your life
in the military, who have never served, and do not have a damn
clue about any of this. Mr. Lohmeier in particular, Mr. Thibeau
in particular, God bless you for your viewpoints and your
willingness to sacrifice what you have for the things that you
believe in, because you are correct. Our military is being
destroyed right now, and we all know it. We all know it.
And while I wish, and I hope that it still remains the best
military in the world, I am not sure that that is the case
anymore, and we better damn well come to that realization and
get after that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Good points. Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
point out what my colleague just said. You know, as it relates
to members of the United States military whose promotions were
being held up because of a Senator who had problems, from an
ideological point of view, with bodily autonomy, the message to
them was ours is not to reason why but to do or die. But then
to a gentleman here, who did complain and fight, wrote a book
about his issues, the message was completely different, which I
think just shows the hypocrisy in this room right now from the
other side of the aisle.
I am from the state of Florida. This war on wokeism is not
new to me, and it is a shame that Republicans on this Committee
have not caught on to my Governor DeSantis' failing
Presidential campaign that is based on this war on woke. And
this misplacement on wokeism in the military endangers
America's national security by ignoring the real threats. Some
of the real threats to our national security are low military
recruitment and retention rates, which is what I want to focus
on today.
Look, service members are not leaving the military because
of DEI training or because a military base was renamed or
because someone accessed an abortion. But what I do hear from
my constituents is this. I have had folks write about problems
with housing allowance being too low in the military, people
messaging me saying medications are too expensive, folks
worrying that service members will not be able to get pay if
Republicans in Congress shut down the government. These are the
real things that resonate with the American people because
these are the issues that this Committee needs to be
addressing.
General, you testified that the Army became more diverse
and welcoming to soldiers of color over your time in service.
How has that inclusion helped retain talented service members?
Gen. Seidule. Thank you, Congressman. We have a greater
pool to draw from. We did not used to be able to draw from
people of color or women, or if we had LGBTQ they were kicked
out, which I know many that were kicked out. We have a broader
thing.
We need every person to be able to serve, and we cannot do
that if we are trying to kick people out or not allowing people
to serve and not making it welcoming. We are a better Army
because of our diversity.
Mr. Frost. I 100 percent agree with you. I mean, we know at
West Point that Black students had highlighted during their
time the art memorializing the traitor Confederate General
Robert E. Lee that hung on the wall and the fact that the only
Black person hanging on the walls was someone who was a slave.
And I think that things like that hurt our military readiness
and national security when it makes our service members
uncomfortable.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion strengthens our national
military. It does not work against it.
General, you have also testified about your own story of
service, quote, ``I did not choose the Army because of
patriotism. I signed up for the money,'' end quote. And I do
not bring that up as a disparaging thing because we know that
this is something that is true for many of our service members,
especially when I speak with folks who like myself in my
community that are looking at joining the military. You joined
to help afford college, your college, and ended up staying for
more than four decades. So, thank you so much for your service.
We know that many soldiers enlist for financial reasons but
then choose not to reenlist because it is unaffordable for
them. Have you observed any trends around how economic
struggles can stunt a soldier's career?
Gen. Seidule. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I particularly
think that is true because our soldiers now deploy, or actually
rotate, so often to Eastern Europe, to South Korea, and to the
Middle East without additional money for that. And so, if you
are doing two 9-month rotations to one of those two places,
plus National Training Center or other things, it is incredibly
difficult, particularly for the family at home, because they
have no great childcare options.
Mr. Frost. Yes. Yes. And I would love to host a hearing
about that instead, to see how we can handle those struggles.
Since at least the 1940s, Congress has given the United
States military money to create signing and reenlistment
bonuses to incentivize service members to join and stay in the
service. General, do you think the military should be
collecting data on why and when bonuses are helpful, so we can
better understand the financial hardships of our service
members?
Gen. Seidule. Yes. We have been doing bonuses at least
since I have been in, and they work. Because just like I was a
poor kid coming from rural Georgia, I had no way of getting
through college without it. Those financial incentives matter
in an all-volunteer force.
Mr. Frost. A second thing that this Committee should be
hosting hearings on to figure out how we can better our
national security and military readiness and preparedness.
Look--and I know we have Mr. Lohmeier and folks who have
had uncomfortable or maybe negative interpretations or
experiences with DEI, and I would never take away someone's
experience from them. But what I do want to call out is there
is a difference between seeing something that you see value in,
in diversity, equity, and inclusion, or diversity in our
military, and saying, ``We ought to fix these problems. I think
there are some problems with it. I think we ought to fix
them,'' versus saying, ``We should just completely get rid of
it.''
I mean, in 1954, when we began to desegregate schools in
this country, we knew it would be uncomfortable. We knew there
would be problems. But we did it because it was the right thing
to do.
This hearing is entitled ``The Risk of Progressive
Ideologies in the U.S. Military.'' DEI is not a progressive
ideology. It is just the right thing to do. If we want to talk
about progressive ideology in the military we can talk about
affordable housing and food, we can talk about tuition
assistance, we can talk about universal health care that the
military provides, progress ideologies in the military, but not
DEI.
Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our panelists
for being here today. I joined the Army in 1988, and again boot
camp in 1989 as a Private, one-station unit training. I wanted
to be an MP. That ended up working out for me. But one of the
initial lessons that you learn very quickly when you step off
of that bus and you have to face these guys that are carved
from granite and wrapped in leather, tapping that brown round
against your forehead, is you are no longer you. You now belong
to the United States Army.
To discuss diversity as if it was ever some sort of an
effective mechanism by which a deadly force could be
established to fight and win wars across the world, to liberate
the oppressed for generations, is insane. We do not care about
anything other than the deadly effectiveness of our Army. It
requires discrimination, because developing deadly skills in a
force of men requires us to recognize distinction, to
discriminate between those who can become lethal weapons and
those who cannot. Nobody cares about the color of your skin,
your cultural background, your ethnicity, who your mama or your
daddy was.
Your ass now belongs to the Army, and we are going to make
a soldier out of you, or we are going to remove you from this
unit, and you go do something else. No problem. The world needs
insurance salesmen and everybody else. But if you are going to
be a soldier, we are going to carve you into what it is to be a
soldier.
I do not understand why my colleagues cannot see the
difference between civilian life and military life. Nobody is
firing live rounds at us up here. That is not part of our
designated job description. But it damn sure is a job
description for our soldiers. And we cannot fill our ranks in
the United States Army right now. You know why? I think you do
know why. Because conservative families across America that
have a deep lineage of military service are not encouraging
their sons and daughters to join the Army because it is crap
that our sons and daughters are having to deal with now in the
Army, that my colleagues are applauding, like yay. You know, we
need to diversify. Diversified? They were called uniform for a
reason. We must be uniformly deadly and effective, rapidly
deployed. But we care not what the color of the skin is to the
soldier next to us or whether or not he is gay or straight.
That has zero to do with the performance of our Army.
And yet we are indeed attempting to indoctrinate those very
civilian considerations into our military. That is why you
cannot fill the ranks because traditional American families
know that that is a wrong formula.
Ranger Thibeau--Rangers lead the way.
Mr. Thibeau. All the way, sir.
Mr. Higgins. I am going to ask you, the opening line of
your statement, you rightly draw upon a distinction regarding
considering between those who join our military and those who
choose just other courses of life. You said, and I quote,
``Training the United States Army is meant to melt away the
effects of civilian life and to forge Americans into soldiers,
ready to devote their lives to the mass application of violence
on behalf of American interests.'' Can you speak to the
uniqueness of what it is to be a soldier as opposed to being a
civilian in America?
Mr. Thibeau. To be a soldier is to live a life where you
take for granted the fact that you would die for the person
next to you and that you would enter an arena where that death
is possible, on purpose, and that you would be prepared, as a
team and as a person, to do whatever it took not to survive but
to win, and even if that requires immense suffering, sacrifice,
and an inconvenience every day for you and your family.
Mr. Higgins. Did you ever, for 1 day, at any time, consider
the diversity of the Ranger next to you?
Mr. Thibeau. No.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much. Mr. Thibeau, Mr.
Lohmeier, General, thank you all for your service.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Ms. Porter.
Ms. Porter. Was that my recognition, ``OK, Ms. Porter''?
All right.
Mr. Lohmeier, do you agree with President Trump's Executive
Order 9981?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Well, you will have to explain----
Ms. Porter. I am so sorry.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] You will have to explain
what you mean. I do not know executive orders by numbers.
Ms. Porter. Let me start again. Do you agree with President
Truman's order that integrated the armed services despite the
fact that separate but equal was still the law of the land at
the time?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Let me say that this is an important
point. The Congressman to your left has said he wanted to find
common ground. There is a lot of what the General has said
today that I do not disagree with whatsoever, but it seems to
me irrelevant to the discussion of progressivism as an ideology
in the military workplace.
Let me point out one example, in answer to your question,
of what I am opposed to--reintroduction of[indistinguishable]--
--
Ms. Porter. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Lohmeier.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] Which is a direct----
Ms. Porter. Reclaiming my time.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] Consequence----
Ms. Porter. Mr. Chair, it is my time.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] Of DEI initiatives. We have
got----
Ms. Porter. Mr. Chair, I would like to reclaim my time.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] Because of DEI, and I am
happy to talk to that.
Ms. Porter. Mr. Lohmeier, I am going to try again. Do you
agree--I appreciate that you have opinions, and you are
entitled to have them, but I would like you to try to answer
the question I am asking with respect, sir. Do you agree with
President Truman's Executive Order 9981 that integrated the
armed services despite the fact that separate but equal was
still the law of the land at the time?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. I agree that the military has led the
way in integration----
Ms. Porter. OK. Thank you.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] Which has been the strength
of the United States military. But we are undoing it all with
diversity----
Ms. Porter. OK. Reclaiming my time.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] Equity, and inclusion.
Ms. Porter. That decision was progressive at the time. In
other words, the military went to a place of integration and
efforts to have Black and White soldiers working alongside each
other. It was not always perfect, it was not always easy, but
it was literally the definition of progress and progressive. It
went beyond existing law.
General, did Truman's actions to integrate the military
under EO 9981 lead directly to any readiness deficits? You are
a military historian.
Gen. Seidule. No. In fact, the first thing that it did,
Congresswoman, was integrate Arlington National Cemetery.
Ms. Porter. Mr. Lohmeier, you were an active duty--and
thank you for your service--Air Force officer in 2010. Is that
correct?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Yes.
Ms. Porter. OK. Were there any big problems in military
readiness in 2010?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. As a young flyer I never paid attention
to what you folks were doing. I never paid attention to reports
on readiness lethality. I simply focused on the mission. It was
learning how to fly an aircraft. And at that time, it was
training our allied partners and foreign military pilots how to
fly jets.
Ms. Porter. Well, I am glad, Mr. Lohmeier, that you were
able to focus on your military duties, and it seems to me that
your own testimony here is a really good example of the fact
that the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' did not cause a
disruption in your ability or the military readiness of the Air
Force to do its job.
General, is there any empirical evidence that gay Americans
serving opening has hurt military readiness?
Gen. Seidule. No.
Ms. Porter. So historically, when the military has been
progressive, has gone beyond where other policies may be, has
tried to encourage diversity or welcome people to be diverse
and to learn about each other, there has been no harm to force
readiness.
General, could one consider President Truman's executive
action a diversity initiative? General Truman's why am I having
so much trouble with this? General, could one consider
President Truman's executive action a diversity initiative?
Gen. Seidule. Yes.
Ms. Porter. How about the 2010 repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell?''
Gen. Seidule. Yes.
Ms. Porter. So, in your view should the military roll back
those diversity policies?
Gen. Seidule. Absolutely not.
Ms. Porter. Mr. Thibeau, do you think that the military
should roll back those initiatives?
Mr. Thibeau. No, Congresswoman, I do not, because the
integration of the armed forces in 1948 was a recognition that
the military is different from society, and so it should march
to the beat of a different drum. And that is why I think it was
such a good policy, because it ensured that we had the best.
Things changed in 1960, when the military became a beacon for
affirmative action and quotas, but I agree with you that it was
good policy in 1948.
Ms. Porter. OK. And would you repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell''?
Mr. Thibeau. No, because it is a means by which the
military attracts the best talent. But what I would object to
is if the military had a quota for LGBT Americans on the books.
Ms. Porter. Do they?
Mr. Thibeau. Not that I know of, but they do for Black,
White, Hispanic Americans, and I think those are----
Ms. Porter. General, is that correct? I am not aware. My
brother served. He went to the United States Naval Academy. He
served 5 years. He served on a nuclear submarine. I do not
recall him ever enforcing, being part of, as an officer, any
type of quota system.
Gen. Seidule. There are no quota systems, Congresswoman.
Ms. Porter. Hm. I do not recall that being U.S. military
policy. I do not remember ever passing a law, since we are in
Congress and we make the rules, I do not remember ever passing
a law with regard to that.
Our military is more effective when it is diverse, and you
cannot have an effective, diverse team without teaching people
how to work effectively together. That is what these
initiatives should focus on.
I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman Grothman, and thank you,
gentlemen, for all your service. I appreciate it.
The U.S. armed forces are under attack, not by a foreign
adversary but from within their own ranks. Woke policies have
infiltrated the U.S. military and caused failing recruitment
and retention rates, low morale, and quite frankly, pose a
national security threat.
Our service members are heroes and must endure considerable
challenges in their sacrifice to our Nation. Their focus should
not be compromised by politically motivated critical race
theory, LGBTQ training, and DEI and pro-abortion policies.
Perhaps recruitment and retention efforts have failed not
because of the military's lack of diversity, but rather because
service members are afraid of retaliation for speaking out
against progressive policies.
Just a few months ago we heard from General Mark Milley,
who said that service academies should teach about White rage,
while simultaneously claiming the military is not woke. Lloyd
Austin, in an unprecedented move in October 2022, required the
DoD to pay for the travel of service members seeking to end the
life of their unborn children. Our service men and women
deserve more from their leaders.
Now, let me ask you, both Mr. Thibeau and Mr. Lohmeier, is
war fair?
Mr. Thibeau. No.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Lohmeier?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Can you repeat that? Did you say is war
fair?
Mr. Gosar. Fair.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. No.
Mr. Gosar. So, in the comparison of education versus war,
that is not an equal application, is it?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. No, Congressman.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Thibeau?
Mr. Thibeau. They are different, different institutions,
different experiences.
Mr. Gosar. Very different. So, for example, an improvised
IED does not know the color of your skin, does not know if you
are gay, whatever. Right?
Mr. Thibeau. That is right.
Mr. Gosar. Does the enemy care what color you are?
Mr. Thibeau. No, Congressman.
Mr. Gosar. Hm, that is really interesting.
So, the DoD funds and relies on data from a group called
START, the national consortium that is the Study of Terrorism
and Responses to Terrorism. START came out with a figure in one
of these reports that depicts a type of alleged extremist in
the military. I think they were bringing it up on the screen
here, please.
Shockingly, the vast majority are considered right-wing
extremists. Categories of extremists include militia, which is
specifically mentioned in the Constitution, including the
Second Amendment, numerous times; male supremacists; and anti-
abortion.
My question for you, Mr. Thibeau, do you think service
members are leaving the military because they may be considered
extremists for simply opposing abortion, owning a gun, or for a
belief in a traditional family?
Mr. Thibeau. I do not think so, Congressman. The Inspector
General report on extremism came out I think a few weeks ago,
on a Friday afternoon, without much fanfare, where they said
that there is no difference in the extremism in the military
compared to society, and there was nothing to find.
The American Principles Project surveyed veterans, hundreds
of recently separated veterans, and the biggest reason why
people left, and also why they would not join, is because of a
distrust of politicized military leadership, which I think
speaks to the point and the value of this hearing.
Mr. Gosar. Gotcha. So, another question. Belief in a
militia is extreme. The word is mentioned five times in the
Constitution. And the Second Amendment says a ``well-regulated
militia is necessary for the security of a free state.'' Does
that mean the Constitution is an extreme document, according to
this military-funded group?
Mr. Thibeau. Yes, there seems to be a discrepancy or some
cognitive dissonance there. But, you know, I do not know how
words are assigned to different meanings, but I think most
service members are well-intentioned and good Americans, and
both sides should do well to remember that.
Mr. Gosar. Gotcha. Mr. Lohmeier, thank you again for your
service. Many of the talented men and women of the Air Force
reside in my district at the Luke Air Force Base out in
Arizona. Has the COVID jab mandate negatively affected the
military's readiness?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. There are a number of ways, it seems, it
has impacted negatively our readiness. I am not the expert on
that issue, however. It is not what I wrote a book about. In
fact, the mandates were rolling out at the time I separated
from active duty. But I have got good friends and colleagues
who would be perfect to testify about that issue.
Mr. Gosar. So, sadly, the DoD has refused to reinstate the
thousands of service members kicked out of the military for
rejecting the experimental COVID shot. Would reinstatement of
these service members help improve the military's readiness?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Well, it is possible that it could,
Congressman. The question is probably better stated whether or
not any of those forced out for their decision or for the
discrimination that led to their forcing out would even have
any interest in coming back in.
There are groups actively working at the moment to try and
take action on behalf of those who either were injured or
killed, their family members, or were forced out for their
religious convictions or for violating their conscience, to
take what they considered to be an illegal, immoral, or an
unethical order. And that has ripple effects today in the
service.
Again, I am not the expert on that, but I am friends with
many who are, who would be happy to testify about it.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I want to say thank you very much, all
three of you, for your service. We appreciate it. You are
heroes in my book and in our district, so thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thanks. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to
thank all of our witnesses for their excellent testimony today
and also for their service to the country and also Members of
this Committee who served in uniform as well as in this body.
So, Mr. Seidule, or General Seidule, I want to look at
three attacks on politicization or diversity changes and the
thing that I guess people are calling woke. I want to start
with women in the military, and, of course, women were
systemically excluded from the military for a long time, and
there was a huge struggle about that. And finally, women were
able to enter the armed forces on relatively equal status. I do
not know if my friend, Mr. Higgins, would consider this part of
the traditional American soldiers or not. But women have served
for a long time in different capacities and now have equality.
But I am assuming that women in the military want the same
rights that women across the country do, and after Donald
Trump's gerrymandered Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and
women's right to choose, which was in the law for more than
half a century, women across the country have rejected that and
have stood up for their full reproductive freedom, including in
Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, California, Vermont, you name it.
Everywhere it has been on the ballot, the vast majorities of
women and men have supported women's right to choose.
So, I assume--now, I do not have a study on it, but I
assume women in the military feel the same way, and that they
would want to maintain their right to choose their own
reproductive health care. Now, Senator Tuberville interfered
with hundreds and hundreds of military promotions for many,
many months in order to stop women in the military from having
their complete, full access to reproductive choice and to
health care.
Now, who do you think is politicizing the military? Is it
Senator Tuberville, with his anti-choice agenda, where he wants
to dictate to all of the women of the military what their
access will be to health care, or is it those women themselves.
Are they the ones that are somehow perpetrating a woke agenda
by saying that they want to have equal choice? And don't we
depend on women in the military these days? Last I saw it was
something like 18 or 20 percent, you know, even in the Army.
So, please answer that if you would.
Gen. Seidule. Yes. I would say that Senator Tuberville
created political pawns out of those general officers. We have
a non-political Army. We are one of the few countries in the
history of the world that has never had a military coup d'tat,
and it is partly because we are non-political. And yet Senator
Tuberville created political pawns for a policy he disagreed
with. I could not disagree more with him for doing that and
hurting our force and those general and flag officers.
Mr. Raskin. The military also depends on lots of African
Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans. That is just a
reality. You might love it. You might hate it. You might be
ambivalent about it. You might just accept it. But in any
event, that is the reality, as I understand it. And in any
event, the Army decided that it wanted to rename military bases
that had been named, not after U.S. generals, but after
Confederate generals who joined the Confederacy in rebellion
against the Union. Like Fort Benning was renamed after a pro-
Union, pro-American general. Fort Gordon was renamed as Fort
Eisenhower. Fort Hill renamed as Fort Walker. And yet I take it
this is part of the big anti-woke arraignment and indictment of
the military that we have renamed military bases after pro-
Union, pro-American soldiers, generals, people who have been
loyal and faithful to the Union as opposed to those who have
opposed the Union and took up arms against the Union in
traitorous insurrection.
Now, who is politicizing this question? Is it the people
who go along with the Army's decision to say that is who our
bases should be named after, pro-Americans, or the people who
are wanting to stick to the old Confederate battle names? And I
like you to address that, and also Mr. Lohmeier. I think you
have taken the position against changing the names.
Gen. Seidule. Remember that the names were changed,
Congressman, because this body voted overwhelmingly, overrode
the veto of President Trump, to create the Naming Commission,
of which I served as vice chair. It was my proudest moment to
rename those after true American heroes and not those who chose
treason to preserve slavery.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. And do you agree with that, Mr.
Lohmeier?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. I will say that it is my view that
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has politicized the military.
As soon as the Supreme Court decision was made, he issued a
policy memorandum blaming the Supreme Court's decision to
reverse Roe v. Wade on the recruitment----
Mr. Raskin. But I am asking about the naming.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. But you brought that up.
Mr. Raskin. I am asking about the naming----
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. I am getting there.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Of our military bases.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. I am getting there.
Mr. Raskin. If you do not want to address it, just say you
do not want to answer it.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Yes, I walked----
Mr. Raskin. You take the----
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing]. I walked Black Lives
Matter Plaza yesterday with a Chinese American----
Mr. Raskin. Yes, I did not ask you about that.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. No, I am answering your question. Excuse
me.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Yes.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. And she advocated----
Mr. Raskin. Is it OK, Mr. Chairman, if we go over here,
because----
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] For leaving those signs up.
Mr. Raskin. The witness wants to filibuster a little bit.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. No. I would like to answer more than
yes-or-no questions.
Mr. Grothman. We can let him answer the question.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, let him answer, because I was not quite
done yet, but now he is occupying my time. If you want him to
answer, that is fine. So, yes, about the renaming of the bases
after pro-Union, pro-American generals.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Thank you, Mr. Raskin. I would like to
answer that question in more than just a yes-or-no format.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. I walked the Black Lives Matter Plaza
yesterday with Xi Van Fleet, a Chinese Maoist, cultural
revolution survivor, and I had an interesting conversation with
her in which she advocated--I had never thought about this
before--and, by the way, I do not address this topic in my
book. I wrote about Marxist critical race theory. She said, ``I
would recommend that once we defeat wokeism, we leave all of
the Black Lives Matters paint on the ground and the signs
naming the streets.'' I asked her why. She said, ``Because it
is a reminder that once here, on the north side of the White
House, we had a woke revolution, a Marxist revolution take
place,'' and I agree with that. It is a reminder that there has
been such divisive conflict in this enemy before that people
were willing to use violent force to hurt one another.
I have no problem with the General's efforts----
Mr. Raskin. If I understand you correctly, and I am trying
to torture out an answer, what you are saying is that we should
have Army bases named after Confederate generals or Nazi
generals, people we have defeated at war. Is that right?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. No, I am not willing to let you put
words in my mouth.
Mr. Grothman. We are about 2 minutes over here, so we are
just going to let Mr. Lohmeier finish, and that is it.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. So, my point is this is not an issue in
which I have actively been involved----
Mr. Raskin. Hm.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] The renaming of bases. I
wrote a book about Marxist DEI, Marxist critical race theory.
That is my expertise. I have no personal issue with the fact
that this gentleman to my left, who honorably served this
country, has been a part of a commission to do that. I have
personal opinions about why it is wrong-headed in part of an
ideological push. But this is not my----
Mr. Raskin. So, you would not have renamed them, in other
words.
Mr. Grothman. We are 2 1/2 minutes over.
Mr. Raskin. Point of order.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. That is not something I ever focus on.
Mr. Raskin. All right. I think I have got my answer, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
witnesses being here today.
So, Mr. Lohmeier, when we look at some of the things that
have been said by the gentleman to your left--and I do not
think I can pronounce your name, and I want to pronounce it
right.
Gen. Seidule. Sid-u-lee.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Seidule. Yes, thank you. And I read your
testimony. I am interested to know your reaction to his
positions with regard to the diversification of the military
and DEI. Thank you.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Sure. One point that the General made
with which I disagree is that diversity is our strength. I do
not think there is any evidence for that, but definitions
matter. Words matter, and we are losing touch with this. I
would reject the notion that diversity is our strength, based
on DEI definitions of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
OK. I am going to get away from that because if we are
trying to find unity of understanding let me say this. Skill
and performance matter in the military, if you would like to
deter conflict and win our Nation's wars, period. As a
commander in the military I had a Black colonel fly across the
country to promote me to lieutenant colonel, because I loved
the hell out of the guy and respected his views on the
Federalist Papers, which he was teaching me after work hours,
and because he was the best leader I have ever worked with.
The best airman that I had working for me, incidentally,
was a transgender airman.
So, do not bullshit me and say that you think you know what
you are talking about. You have never served. You do not
understand how this works. We care about performance in the
military, period. You do not know what you are talking about.
Most of the people in this room do not know what they are
talking about. We need lethality in the military, period.
All of the stuff you guys talk about, the men and women in
uniform do not think about. They go play Call of Duty at night
after they learn their mission and execute that mission,
period. They do not know what you are talking about. They do
not know what you are voting on. They do not care about your
sexual preference. They do not care what you look like, and
they do not care what the person next to them look like,
period.
I am a citizen of this country and I can dislike you and
criticize you all I want here, but our men and women in uniform
cannot. And so I speak on their behalf when I say lethality
matters, merit-based selection and promotions matter, and your
ideology does not matter one bit. And we need to identify
principles which will preserve our union and preserve the unity
of the United States military. If we do not, we will lose that
union.
And it is my contest--whatever Truman did decades ago, you
ask your average military service member when Truman was the
President of the United States, they cannot even tell you. But
my point is they are focused on what has happened since the
George Floyd riots. There are things that have happened in the
last 3 years in our military that we are up here to testify
about, not the things that happened 60 years ago. We are great
today because of what we have done for the last half century in
the fighting of the cold war.
Mr. Biggs. And Mr. Lohmeier, what has happened in the last
3 years that has caused lethality to deteriorate in the
military?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. There has been an over-politicization of
the military workplace and the forcing of trainings that are
anti-American, that criticize our founders, that allege that
White supremacy is a problem within the military ranks, which
has never been proven. And all of that rhetoric that occurred
once Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin took office led to a
bunch of moaning and bitching and complaining behind closed
doors of our service members.
And I heard it as a commander, and so I wrote a formal
written IG complaint about it that was dismissed by senior
leaders because they were afraid of the political and racial
climate that we have created in this country, and so they were
afraid to hold one another accountable for their politics,
senior leaders. So, they are not held accountable for their
political worldview, but young people will be held accountable.
I am living evidence and a living example of the fact that
the diversity initiatives are discriminatory. I was kicked out
for saying I would like to depoliticize the workplace, not for
advocating for Republican candidates, not for criticizing
Democrat candidates. I never publicly advocated for anyone
politically, but I was forced out because of viewpoint
discrimination. Diversity initiatives are discriminatory, and
inclusion initiatives are exclusive of my viewpoint. And so, I
am living evidence that the politicization in the military
workplace in the past several years is discriminatory, and it
discriminates specifically against conservatism and
Christianity, period.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, I want to submit for the record
something called ``Declaration of Military Accountability: An
Open letter to the American People from Signatories of the
Declaration of Military Accountability'' into the record.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. So entered.
Mr. Biggs. And then I apologize. I actually had questions
for Mr. Thibeau and Mr. Seidule as well, but we have run out of
time, and I do not think I am going to get that additional 2 1/
2 minutes that the Ranking Member got, so I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Seidule, first
of all thank you all for your service to our country. I really
do appreciate it. I have been a Member of this Committee for
about 22 years, and while I have not served in the military I
have led most of them but done about 20 trips to Afghanistan,
over 20 trips to Iraq, to try to understand, because I have not
served. But I thought if I spent enough time on the ground that
I might learn. I might understand what it is our service men
and women are dealing with.
One of my last trips to Afghanistan, before the withdrawal,
I visited a place called Camp Leatherneck, and had a chance to
participate in a citizenship ceremony. And what they did was,
they have a couple of programs where non-citizens of the United
States can serve in the military, and it improves their
chances--it does not guarantee, but it improves their chances
of becoming citizens. It is somewhat of a progressive idea, I
think, because here you are taking--at that particular ceremony
there were over 100 men and women, of all colors, and faiths I
am sure, but they all took the oath. They all had the American
flag on their shoulder. They had been chasing the Taliban up
and down that province, you know, in combat.
So, it just struck me, you know, when you think about the
quote, you know, Jack Kennedy's quote, ``Ask not what your
country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.''
It seemed like this group, anyway, this group of young men and
women in uniform, they wanted to be U.S. citizens for all the
right reasons, all the right reasons. And I actually think that
having spent time with a couple of those rifle platoons that
experience--and some of them, they were in mixed units so, you
know, there was not just all one group, but a lot of native-
born American citizen soldiers serving right beside them--there
seemed to be high levels of comradery in a really dangerous
environment. So they were pretty tight, as far as I could see.
General Seidule, even though that is somewhat of a
progressive idea, is that something that you think promotes
strength in the military, or is that a progressive idea that
you think might deteriorate in the long term, because they were
non-citizens up to that point.
Gen. Seidule. Immigrants in our military has been one of
our great strengths, one of our great superpowers. We spoke
over 100 languages in World War I. We have had immigrants fight
in every war we have ever had, and it is one of the things that
we do better than any other army or military in the world. I
hope that we can get more of them in because they serve their
nation greatly and become great Americans.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Lohmeier.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Thank you. On its face I do not disagree
with that. It does not necessarily mean that they will perform
in any given job they are put in. That is true for any American
and that is true of anyone that joins in uniform. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Mr. Thibeau?
Mr. Thibeau. Mr. Lynch, I wholeheartedly accept these brave
Americans who have served, you know, coming into the military
as immigrants. I would make a distinction between some policies
that are suggested bringing illegal immigrants into service.
But they are good members of the military because they are good
members of the military, not because of the color of their skin
or because they are immigrants.
Mr. Lynch. Right. I should have added, there is a
requirement. I had talked to the officers in charge, and there
is a requirement that they have sort of a clean bill of health,
that they cannot, you know, join the military to escape justice
or anything like that.
But that is all I have got, Mr. Chairman. I will yield
back. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you much. Mr. Sessions.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This
hearing today is being conducted by the National Security, the
Border, and Foreign Affairs to examine how progressive
ideologies affect military readiness. There was no conclusion
that was drawn. We are asking you. And I want to thank each of
you for your service to our country. I find all three of you
exceptionally, not only prepared and well-read, but able to
defend your positions.
I, as a boy, was and am an Eagle Scout, and have stayed
very active in scouting. We have a saying that says something
like, ``Leave your campsite better than the way you found it.''
Each of you have served in the military, and our--and I am
a conservative Republican from Texas; you can figure that out
by my voice. But we are concerned about the things that we have
heard today, including lethality, the number of people who come
and go in the military, the reason why this Administration has
taken the position it has, up to and including one of my
nephews, who is an Army Ranger, who was not willing to accept
the COVID shot because of his age and the medical feedback.
Can you please tell me, are we leaving our campsite better
than the way we found it? Any of you.
Mr. Thibeau. Mr. Sessions, what we know in the last 2 years
is that every branch of the military except the Marine Corps
has missed their recruiting goals by a lot, for the first time
in the all-volunteer force since Vietnam.
There is more and more evidence that it is due to the
inseep of a political crisis, a politization of the military,
and the confidence that that gives every American to join a
military that is dedicated to American interests and not
partisan objectives. And I think that is an indication that
things are, in fact, getting worse. And maybe we still are the
best military in the world, but let us not wait until we are
not to change things.
Mr. Sessions. Well, that is right. That is that ``leave
your campsite better than you found it.'' Sir? Commander?
General?
Gen. Seidule. Congressman, I am so proud to serve for 36
years in the Army. I would not have stayed if it had not been
that way. I have served with armies throughout the world, and
it is not even close how much better equipped, better led,
better manned, with better political leadership we are than any
other army in the world.
So, I would tell you that over the last, my career, that
the Army is in better shape now than it has ever been, and it
is because of the people that serve and the leaders that are
there.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir, but that is not the question. The
question is are we leaving our campsite better for the future?
If we are not meeting our goals of retention, of having people
stay in, if we are having to pay extravagant amounts of money
for people to talk them into staying. The question was not
about your service. The question is your knowledge of the
service, are we leaving our campsite better than the way we
found it?
Gen. Seidule. Congressman, I would say that in 2022, the
Army recruited 45,000. In 2023, it was 55,000. We still have
people in the pipeline coming in. So, the taskforce of Army
recruiting did a great job of fixing many of those problems,
and it looks like it is on the upswing rather than the
downswing.
Mr. Sessions. OK. Thank you. I did ask for your
professional expertise and you gave me a solid answer.
Commander?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Thank you, Congressman. I recently read
that pilot bonuses in our Air Force are up to $600,000.
Mr. Sessions. Me too. Me too.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. And that is more than double what it was
when I was flying F-15s 10 years ago. And the question I have
is--and I talk to pilots about this--why is it that they would
choose, despite such an increase in the incentive bonus to
leave, to go fly with the airlines, separate, either separate
or go into retirement or separate early, without the
retirement. And I have heard responses like, ``Well, we heard
the Air Force spokesperson say we would like to reduce the
number of White pilots from 85 percent to 67.5 percent.'' So my
question is, is that not a quota?
Mr. Sessions. It would be. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to the record here, ``Air
Force Goes on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Hiring Spree, Top
pays up to $183,500.'' I would like to enter that into the
record.
Mr. Grothman. So ordered.
Mr. Sessions. And I appreciate all three of you for your
service. May God be with you, and thank you for keeping us one
nation, under God.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses this morning for your service to our country and for
being here and spending some time with us today.
Every time a colleague of mine on the other side of the
aisle does not want to have an ideological discussion or a
discussion of real policy that makes real differences in the
lives of the men and women in our country, whether they are
serving our Nation or otherwise, they just invoke the word
``Trump.'' It is just Trump, Trump, Trump. That is all they can
talk about. And quite frankly, I find it tiring and nauseating,
because we have a real opportunity here to make a difference in
the lives of every American, and especially for those that are
literally putting their lives on the line to serve our country.
And, you know, I am one of the only Republicans up here on
the Hill who has talked about Roe v. Wade, who has talked about
finding common ground, who has talked about moderating on
abortion, and finding out where both sides can find agreement.
And there is so much that we can find agreement on, but I have
yet to find one Democrat who is willing to work with me on the
issue of abortion and finding common ground.
And the minute you ask them what their limits are on
abortion, they will not answer the question. They flee the
room. They get the heck out of the way because they do not want
to answer the question. Because the left often has absolutely
no limits on abortion--that is a travesty here today too--
should not really be the point of the conversation because,
unfortunately, the policies of this Administration, you know,
the results speak for themselves. Recruiting is down. Retention
is down. Morale is down. Well, demonizing the military and our
veterans is up.
I remember when I was graduating from the Citadel, a long
time ago--it was 25 years ago--my own father's concerns about
the military. We did not have the word ``woke'' back then, but
he saw what was changing. He spent 28 years in the United
States Army. He is the most-decorated living graduate the
Citadel has ever seen in its history. And I remember the
conversations we would have and how much the military had
changed, and in 25 years it is way off-base now, with some of
the policies we are seeing, particularly with this
Administration.
And so, you know, the United States military has long been
held to the American public as the most respected and trusted
institutions of our country, and rightfully so. It is revered,
and the standing exists because they have remained above the
fray of partisan politics. The politics has now gotten into our
military, and we have seen the demonization of our active-duty
military and our veterans.
And so, I find this conversation deeply disappointing
because, as was mentioned earlier, I believe by Mr. Lohmeier,
about lethality, and why qualifications actually matter.
Because when you are in the trenches, when you are in war, it
does not matter what you look like.
So, my first question is going to go to Mr. Lohmeier.
Talking about lethality, you have been in the trenches. You
have been in war. You have been in combat theater. Does the
color of your skin matter when you are in the trenches, when
you are in combat?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. The answer is no, it does not matter,
and we have sometimes joked in veteran circles that the last
thing that our active-duty troops currently wearing the uniform
say when they are getting deployed downrange to the desert or
to Eastern Europe is, ``Geez, I wish I had another diversity,
equity, and inclusion training before hitting the road.''
Ms. Mace. Does gender matter when you are in war, when you
are in combat, when you are in battle?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. I would say no again, but it also
depends on strength, and it depends on your profession, and I
have no problem saying that. That is why we have standards in
place.
Ms. Mace. Does sexual orientation matter if you are wearing
a uniform?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. I would say no, it does not incidentally
matter, but if it becomes a matter of activist political
orientation then it could influence the military workplace.
Ms. Mace. I do not think anyone believes having people from
diverse backgrounds in the military is a bad thing. I have not
heard any of that today. I think everybody in the country would
welcome diversity, no matter what industry they are in.
Can you explain specifically how what we are seeing in
terms of DEI program SIG that goes far beyond that? Mr.
Lohmeier?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. You mentioned the issue that Trump's
name is invoked as a talking point, and easy go-to talking
point.
Ms. Mace. To not talk about the issue and policy.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Right. And I will use that to answer
your question, Congresswoman. You know, I had a base commander
who, in the lead-up to an election, threatened forfeiture of
pay for all of the members of his base if he caught a whiff of
Trump support in the lead-up to the election. In my view, that
is court-martialable. It is illegal. It is a violation of the
Hatch Act. And it was a direct, express outcome of his
ideological world view. He was a friendly guy. He was loved and
respected by a lot of people. But he created a climate of fear,
and his top issues were--and by the way, Heritage Foundation
and Congressman Waltz just recently did a report of the
National Independent Panel of Military Service and Readiness,
and I have got feedback right here from people in the uniform,
active military members, trust in the military is declining for
the overpoliticization in the military workplace, transgender
policies, withdrawal from Afghanistan debacle, reduction in
physical fitness standards to even the playing field for
diversity's sake.
So, all of the things that we have heard today are not
necessarily the issues of progressivism that are hurting the
military. They are, in fact, what our military members are
saying are the issues, for which they are losing their trust in
their senior leaders. So, when they hear a Mark Milley say,
``Well, I want to learn about White rage,'' you at least get
half of the force shutting off and losing trust in their
military leadership. Now, he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
when he said it. When the Secretary of Defense says things, or
issues a policy memorandum saying that it was a Supreme Court
decision that is hurting our recruiting and readiness, when
they, themselves, have been speaking up for 2 years saying, no,
no, no, that is not the reason we do not want to stay in the
service, then there is a divide that takes place. And it is
that divide that I think we have been invited here to talk
about.
And so that is my answer to that question. I think that is
at the heart of the matter is that ideology divides. It has
always divided. And none of the panel members up here seem to
have any issue with the idea of naturally occurring diversity,
which has been a beautiful and lovely part, both of nature and
of the blessing of the United States of America. We are
naturally a diverse group of people, and it is because we have
the freedom to think and speak clearly and share those views,
and ideology also shuts that down too. And it is an enforced
equality of thought, of expression. It is discriminatory.
Ms. Mace. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Representative LaTurner.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Since stepping into the Oval Office, President Biden and
his Administration have pushed their political agenda on our
men and women in uniform. This is completely unacceptable. When
top defense officials allow politically driven priorities to
affect military readiness, the DoD is failing at its job and
making us vulnerable on a global stage. Our service members
sacrifice so much to protect and defend our country. They
deserve better than to be treated as a social engineering
experiment by the left.
Over the past couple of years, concepts of diversity,
equity, and inclusion have pervaded our country's institutions,
even causing presidents of what were previously this country's
most esteemed universities to believe that they have the
political cover to defend calls for genocide. Curriculums
centered on critical race theory and DEI concepts teach
students more about their differences than their similarities
and shared values, which runs counter to the core ethos of our
armed forces.
The Department of Defense's mission statement, and No. 1
objective, must always be to provide combat-credible military
forces needed to deter war and protect the Nation's security.
The most pressing problem today for force readiness is the
ongoing struggle with recruitment, and pushing partisan
politics on our armed forces is one way to ensure we continue
moving the wrong direction on this issue. We must ensure that
our military leadership is more focused on the threat from our
greatest adversaries than enforcing a politically correct,
divisive ideology that is counterproductive to maintaining a
cohesive military unit. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on this Committee to hold the Administration
accountable, particularly on issues that jeopardize our
national security.
Mr. Thibeau, in 2021, a professor of political science at
the U.S. Air Force Academy published an op-ed in The Washington
Post defending the teaching of critical race theory and arguing
that it is productive for members of the military to, quote,
``understand a fuller version of American history.'' Why do you
disagree with that sentiment, or what would you say in response
to it?
Mr. Thibeau. I do not know the specific case, Congressman,
but my issue is when training in the military focuses on what
someone believes or who they might be because of their assumed
background based on the color of their skin, that engenders
really complicated and divisive assumptions in a unit that
needs to survive based on cohesion. And so if I receive a
training that says, oh, you are a White man, which means you
have blind spots on race or sex, that means a soldier or an
airman joins a unit with the presumption of distrust already
built into their DNA.
But I would say, you know, it should not be surprising that
the Air Force Academy is teaching that when they decide their
admissions classes based on race-based percentiles. It is not
called a quota, but, in effect, those are quotas that are as
harmful as any training the Air Force promotes.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. Mr. Lohmeier, along with your
testimony you submitted dozens upon dozens of quotes from men
and women who had retired from the military. Those quotes are
critical of the current woke culture of the military, and many
former military service members cite DEI efforts and wokeism in
the military as part of their motivation to get out.
Why do you believe that DEI policies have been a cause for
reduced recruitment over the past couple of years?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Yes, the quotes that I submitted in
Exhibit 1, for the record, there were approximately 1,000
unsolicited quotations and feedback from our service members
that are in that document, and the professor at the Air Force
Academy that you are referring to is Lynne Chandler Garcia, who
essentially bragged about teaching critical race theory.
And this is my area of expertise, and the reason it is so
divisive is because it was literally--this is not just figure
of speech--literally created by Marxist ideologues with the
specific purpose of dividing people into groups for the purpose
of fomenting cultural revolution, period. Period. Full stop. I
will back that up 100 percent all day. I studied it for years.
I studied it at DoD strategy schools. I studied Marxist
cultural revolutions around the world, and it looks and smells
the same everywhere you go.
And so it was not surprising to me to see the same base
commander who was threatening forfeiture of pay if he caught a
whiff of Trump support that he said, ``No one will stand in the
way of the Black Lives Matter movement at my base.''
What is interesting and sad about it is that it was OK to
show a support, ideologically, for the movement, but not to
criticize the same movement without being accused of political
partisanship. And this is how this goes. It is politically
partisan if you disagree with the party line. It is not
politically partisan if you tow the party line. That is why it
is divisive.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you for your answer, and I want to
thank all three of you for being here and for your service.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Fallon.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the witnesses for taking your time.
I am a veteran myself, and I apologize, Air Force for 4
years. I found it interesting because when you live something
directly, it was 30 years ago, and dare I say now that we are
in 2024, Mr. Chairman, almost 35 years ago. And one of the
first things they did, when we in-processed, as I was a young
second lieutenant, 22 years old, was they told us about how the
military works, and there is zero tolerance for isms. There
will be sexism in the military. There will not be racism in the
military. Now, of course, when you have an organization of, at
the time, almost two million, you are going to have your
outliers. But it was the extreme exception and absolutely not
the rule.
And they told us that if you participate in any of these
things you will be separated from the military because you are
not someone that can function in a cohesive unit, in a branch
of the service. And I absolutely loved that because contrary to
so many people that foment division in this chamber, that is
how my parents raised us. That is the majesty of living in the
20th and now 21st century in America. Racism is a diminishing
phenomenon every day. Does it exist? Of course, but it is
diminishing every day.
So, I found it interesting when I got this job in January
2021, that there was a focus in the new Administration on White
extremism, political extremism, particularly White supremacy,
that kind of movement, in the military.
So, I have--is it Mr. Sid-u-lee?
Gen. Seidule. Yes, sir. You are great.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Great name and a challenging one.
Gen. Seidule. It is challenging for everyone.
Mr. Fallon. It is a little scary. Do you believe that White
extremism is an issue and problem, let us say a pervasive
problem, in the military today?
Gen. Seidule. It has been several years since I have been,
you know, I really do not know, Congressman.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Well, this Administration clearly did,
because they had a standdown where the entire military,
obviously in stages, stood down for, I think it was 4 hours of
training on the dangers of White extremism. And I found that
interesting because then--I just like to live in data in the
real world, so I asked the different branches of the service,
the commanding officers, the four-star generals, how many
people in that last Fiscal Year were separated due to White
extremist activity?
And in the United States Army, with, at the time, 1.1
million active, Reserve, and National Guardsmen, 1.1 million,
that number was 9, 9. So not quite 1 in a million but damn near
close. In the United States Marine Corps, reservists and active
duty, I think it was 222,000 at the time, that number was 4, 4
out of almost a quarter of a million. And the Navy and Air
Force were, begrudgingly, finally, came forward and said,
``Yes, our numbers would be commensurate with those numbers,''
so single digits. And then when you factor in the man hours
lost when you stand down for 4 hours and talk about an issue
that is not a pervasive issue, you are talking hundreds of
millions of dollars to satisfy a political objective with the
United States military.
And then, you know, we talk about diversity is our
strength, and this and that. I think merits are a strength, and
I think, as obviously an unabashed conservative, that success,
talent, ability, and skill comes in all shapes, sizes, and
shades. That is what I have seen in my experience. There are
geniuses, and their pigmentation is completely immaterial to
what is on their mind and their education and their drive, and
their talent and ability. So, merit should be first, because I
think that we would agree, we have a great panel here, Col.
Lohmeier, would you agree that the Chinese military is a grave
threat to not only this country but really freedom and liberty
in the world?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Yes, I agree with that, both as a
foreign adversary and also as an information facilitator
domestically here in this country.
Mr. Fallon. And Mr. Thibeau?
Mr. Thibeau. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Seidule?
Gen. Seidule. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, we are all in agreement. I think most
Members of Congress would agree. There are 435 in this chamber,
probably get to about 433. There are always a couple of
outliers, as we know.
But what I find interesting about that is, is the Chinese
military diverse, ethnically? No, because diversity has nothing
to do with military strength. It is about merit. And I think
that in this country we are the most diverse major country in
the world, and I think that is wonderful and beautiful. But we
need to focus more on merit and the best, because we hear this
so much here, these standards of well, we need diversity,
equity, inclusion, and things of that nature, which again,
merit, that will all sort itself out.
Because if anybody in this room needed lifesaving brain
surgery tomorrow, you know what your criteria would be? The
best. You would not give a rat's ass what nationality this
person was, what ethnicity, what gender, what religion, what
god they worship, none of it. Who is the best surgeon in the
world to preserve my life so I can live it for my family, my
kids, and my country.
I want to thank the witnesses again. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for this great topic, and I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Good point. Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Seidule--See-
dule?
Gen. Seidule. Whatever you want, Congressman. I am good.
Thank you.
Mr. Waltz. See-jule?
Gen. Seidule. Sid-u-lee.
Mr. Waltz. Sid-u-lee. All right. We will start with you. I
think you would well know that I was just reviewing Joint Pub
3.0, Joint Operations, a Foundation of Joint Operations in the
Military, and nowhere in there does it call for diversity of
command. It does call for unity of command, and it talks a lot
about unit morale and the need for unity within our military
units.
You testified earlier that you have not seen Marxism,
critical race theory, you do not know where it is in the
military, or where it is at West Point. Is that an accurate
characterization?
Gen. Seidule. I had not heard of it. When I was at West
Point, teaching there for two decades, I had not heard of it
until it became a national issue.
Mr. Waltz. When did you leave West Point?
Gen. Seidule. I stopped teaching there in 2019.
Mr. Waltz. OK. So you are unaware, then, that Critical Race
Theory 101 is part of the West Point curriculum.
Gen. Seidule. Critical? I----
Mr. Waltz. According to, and I would like to enter into the
record----
Gen. Seidule [continuing]. I am not quite sure what--you
are saying that there is a Department of Critical Race Theory?
Mr. Waltz. No. It is part of the syllabus, excuse me.
Gen. Seidule. A part of the syllabus for what, Congressman?
Mr. Waltz. For one of the classes at West Point.
Gen. Seidule. Well, no, I think that is absolutely true
that for one class, for one elective, it certainly could be.
Mr. Waltz. Do you agree with the lecture, ``Understanding
Your Whiteness and White Rage'' taught by Dr. Carol Anderson of
Emory University, that that should be taught at West Point?
Gen. Seidule. I am not familiar with that lecture.
Mr. Waltz. Do----
Gen. Seidule. But the thing is that----
Mr. Waltz. Essentially, the theme is that White people are
enraged, not 100 years ago, not 40 years, which you are talking
about, in the 1960s and 1970s, but today, White cadets, White
people are enraged by Black advancement.
Gen. Seidule. Congressman, the great thing about education
is you can get a variety of different perspectives.
Mr. Waltz. Sure.
Gen. Seidule. It is not training, which is what some of my
colleagues have talked about. I am talking about education. You
want to hear the broadest representation of every viewpoint, to
understand----
Mr. Waltz. Do you understand--I know, but this is the very
clever approach of the left, to conflate history with current-
day training. So, would you agree that critical race theory is
a foundation for DEI?
Gen. Seidule. No, I would not. I do not know that to be
true. DEI, it goes back to equal opportunity, in the early part
of the 1970s. It a part of equal opportunity. I would say----
Mr. Waltz. What is the difference in equity and equality?
Equal opportunity, which is--so right now the Director of
National Intelligence, how infused this ideology has become
across our national security apparatus, the Director of
National Intelligence has an Office for Equal Opportunity,
which, for the record, I fully agree with. I want every
American--race, religion, socioeconomic background--to have an
equal opportunity to serve.
They also have an Office of DEI, including equity. What is
the difference in equity and equality?
Gen. Seidule. Well, I would say that when this started, as
a historian, it started as Defense Race Relation Institute, and
then became the Defense Equal Opportunity.
Mr. Waltz. What is the difference in equity and equity,
equal opportunity to serve, and equity, which is an equal
outcome for all.
Gen. Seidule. I would again say that the equal opportunity,
which at least at West Point, when I was there and started the
DEI program----
Mr. Waltz. I am all for equal opportunity.
Gen. Seidule [continuing]. But the equal opportunity
program falls under the DEI at West Point.
Mr. Waltz. What is equity?
Gen. Seidule. I do not know what--Congressman, if you are--
--
Mr. Waltz. You are the expert today, the Democratic
witness. Diversity, equity, and inclusion is part of--there is
a DEI Office in the Pentagon, a Chief DEI Officer.
Gen. Seidule. There is DEI in many----
Mr. Waltz. You do not know what equity--you cannot testify
to what equity means? Well, I will tell you since you do not
know.
Gen. Seidule. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Waltz. It is equal outcomes for all, which is a
hallmark of Marxism. DEI is Marxist-based, as is critical race
theory.
But let us progress, since, I mean, apparently the expert
does not know what equity is in DEI. I have here, I would like
to enter for the record, a class composition with racial goals
for West Point. You just testified, you are under oath, you
were in the Admissions Office.
Gen. Seidule. I was not in the Admissions Office. I was on
the Admissions Committee for 1 year, and I know that there were
no quotas, is what I said, Congressman.
Mr. Waltz. So, we are going to parse over quota and goals.
This is from the superintendent, and here are the goals, and it
has African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, women, with
percentages. We have red here for when they miss those goals.
That is----
Gen. Seidule. As I said, Congressman, there are no quotas--
when I was on the Admissions Committee there were no quotas.
Mr. Waltz. Let us also enter into the record----
Gen. Seidule. There was also, Congressman, the ability to
have athletes on there. So, there are many other goals on
there, as I am sure you have seen, on what are the others. And
if you could go read all of those goals it would tell you how
deep that is. And, in fact----
Mr. Waltz. Here is the problem.
Gen. Seidule [continuing]. One of the largest number of
people that are recruited at West Point are athletes, 25
percent.
Mr. Waltz. Here is the problem. When you have any elite
institution, when you say, and your directive is to advance one
group based on the skin color, you have to take those slots
from another group, based on their skin color.
Gen. Seidule. And Congressman----
Mr. Waltz. This is zero sum.
Gen. Seidule [continuing]. But the largest of those groups
is the athletes.
Mr. Waltz. It is a zero sum. The athletes get broken down
by their skin color, in this chart. In this chart.
Gen. Seidule. Twenty-five percent of those.
Mr. Waltz. In this chart that you just said does not exist.
But let us continue. This is my time. Here--just to go how
system-wide, Mr. Chairman, here is a memorandum from the
Secretary of the Air Force, with White, Black, Asian, American
Indian. I mean, I think my wife, who is an Army veteran, who is
Arab, she does not have a place, I guess, in this chart. My
son, who is now multiracial, I do not know if he would have a--
he probably looks White to most people--I do not know that he
would have a place.
But here you have current percentages and a mandate to
increase those percentages. You have to then take those slots,
whether they are pilot slots or whatever, from someone else,
based on ethnicity. This is signed by the now-Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, C.Q. Brown, signed by the Secretary of the Air
Force, with a mandate--I am sorry----
Mr. Grothman. You are over your time.
Mr. Waltz. Oh, I am sorry--with a mandate you are directed
to develop--Mr. Chairman, would you mind yielding----
Chairman Comer. Can I yield him some of my time? I will
yield him all of my time. I will yield him all of my time.
Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, if it is OK----
Mr. Grothman. It is OK.
Mr. Waltz. I just want to get this on the record because I
think we have had some very misleading testimony today. With a
mandate, you were directed to develop a DEI plan within 30 days
and report back annually, based on percentages. This is
illegal, it is wrong, and it is divisive.
Finally, I just want to ask, as a matter, here are some of
the key proponents of CRT, which basically says to be less
White is to be less racially oppressive. To be White, no member
of society is innocent. What these authors say is that if you
are White, you are incapable of not being racist. That, in and
of itself, is racist, sir. And by the way, these were lecturers
at the Air Force Academy. That is divisive, it is wrong, and it
destructive.
And finally--Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence--
we have data that shows, as Mr. Lohmeier has testified to, 62
percent of active-duty military members are seeing a
politicized military, 65 percent will recommend their child not
join, and now we are in a recruiting crisis. This is why these
hearings are so necessary.
And you are right, Mr. Seidule, in that Congress drives
change. This Congress has banned critical race theory in the
military in this defense bill. We have eliminated the hiring of
divisive DEI bureaucrats. We are going to drive this change to
get our military back to a meritocracy with equal opportunity
for all. You cannot fight racism with more racism, and you have
to have data.
Final question, Mr. Chairman, do you, General Seidule, have
any data that shows that a more or less diverse submarine
bomber brigade is more lethal or less lethal, the submarine
group.
Gen. Seidule. Congressman, I know that a submarine's
lethality comes with its nuclear weapons. We have the most----
Mr. Waltz. No. I am talking about the crew. You have to
have people to operate it.
Gen. Seidule. Right. And I would go back to my area of
expertise, which is in the early 1970s, when we did not have
that lethality then, and----
Mr. Waltz. But today----
Gen. Seidule [continuing]. And the reason that we did not
have that lethality then is because we did not have policies
that allowed us to have that.
Mr. Waltz. We are now 50 years beyond that.
Gen. Seidule. And the reason that we were so good, is we
have had those policies.
Mr. Waltz. Do you have any data that shows----
Gen. Seidule. Those policies have made us as successful as
we are right now.
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Do you have any data that shows, by
percentage, a more or less, let us say bomber crew, let us say
brigade, whether it is 50 percent Black, 10 percent Black, 30
percent Jewish, any of these societal factors, data that drives
readiness?
Gen. Seidule. I would say that the only way we can have an
equal force that is ready and able is to recruit that force,
and if we cannot recruit that force from the entire country and
have leadership that reflects that, then we are not going to be
a successful military. But we are a successful military, in
part because some of these policies allow us to recruit and
retain the greatest Americans in the country.
Mr. Waltz. I will take that for the record that there is no
actual data. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you much. I guess we have a couple
of minutes for Mr. Comer left.
Chairman Comer. I have 2 more minutes, if you want to go
ahead.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Go ahead. Go ahead. You are the expert. Go
ahead.
Mr. Waltz. Let us go with, just for the record, with
General Burt here and how politicization is infusing our
military. This is General Burt from your service, Mr. Lohmeier,
and I would like you to comment on this, who stated publicly,
at a forum, that she would--she is compelled to consider
different candidates who are perhaps less qualified if they
disagree with state law. Can you talk about the implications of
civilian oversight of the military, if we have a three-star
general, active duty, in front of a large crowd, live-streamed,
talking about sending less-qualified people to certain states
because of their state laws? And should the military now be
able to opine--for example, this is the Pandora's Box that is
being opened, that if maybe I do not like the Second Amendment
laws or the gun restriction laws in a certain location, that I
should now be able to self-select with the military to go to a
different place?
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Thank you, Congressman. One of the
points that General Seidule----
Gen. Seidule. Nailed it.
Lt. Col. Lohmeier. [continuing] Made earlier was that he
was unaware of the many hundreds of senior military leaders
ever saying anything aught of Senator Tuberville's hold on
confirmations. And I suppose, generally speaking, that is fair
enough. But during that same time period is when General DeAnna
Burt made the comments you are referring to. And it was overtly
political, and I will tell you, from my own experience, while
in the Space Force, is that the entire time I was there, this
is one of the respected leaders in the Space Force, to whom
people looked, trusted as a warfighter because she was talented
as a warfighter, but the moment you make a statement like that
you lose trust, confidence of the vast majority of people under
your command.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Thanks much. Mr. Comer has waived his, or
gave all his time to Mr. Waltz, so the time has come--but here
we have--first got to get my official--in closing, I want to
thank our witnesses for their testimony, and I yield to Ranking
Member Garcia for his closing remarks.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to just end
this hearing with some of the comments I made earlier, and just
again share that I am dismayed and disappointed that we are
choosing to spend our time this way. I do thank our witnesses,
but I want to do a quick, brief summary of what we have already
heard.
One, a Member chose to use his time to argue that members
of right-wing militias should serve in our armed services. That
is pretty outrageous. A witness, Mr. Lohmeier, called the
slogan ``Black Lives Matter'' a monument to Marxism, which is
also pretty outrageous. The same witness claimed that he speaks
for all service members, and I just want to note for the
record, having talked to many service members before my time in
Congress, and today, I can say with certainty that he does not
speak for all service members, particularly on issues of
diversity and inclusion.
We had a comparison of also that slogan to military bases,
named after people who took up arms to destroy our Nation, to
preserve slavery was discussed. Members decided to relitigate
the Vietnam War, which was interesting. We heard anti-vax
propaganda, which continues to cost lives in this country. We
heard cherry-picked anecdotes from a right-wing ideologue who
personally and baselessly attacked Members of this Committee,
speaking to one of our witnesses. The idea that our work today
upholds the national security is, in my opinion, a joke and
crazy.
And General, I do want to thank you once again for your
clear and insightful testimony.
Here are some of the facts. We need to harness the talents
of every American, especially in a difficult recruiting
environment. That means we need a climate that welcomes people
of all backgrounds, that actively combats bigotry and
extremism, and then makes all service members ensure that they
are protected and supported.
I just want to say, finally, that the arguments being made
by two of our witnesses and some of the Majority, as a reminder
those arguments have already lost. We are in a diverse military
today. Those are arguments of the past. No matter how many
times you come forward, write a book, give testimony, or try to
move us backward, you have failed. The Army is diverse, our
military is diverse, and the United States will continue to be
a place that welcomes diversity, inclusion, and that diversity
is here to stay.
And with that I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I would like to thank everyone for being
here for today's Committee. First of all, I would like to thank
Mr. Perry for pointing out that our military did not lose the
war in Vietnam, just a minor point. It was lost when Congress
stopped giving aid to South Vietnam. But our military did a
tremendous job.
To me, this is a very important Committee and a very
important hearing, because our military has way too many people
who are way too much focused on race. And when they talk about
diversity they are not talking about who is musically inclined
or who is tall or who came from North Dakota. They are talking
about race.
The new head of the Joint Chiefs has said that their goal
should be 42 percent White officers, which means, in other
words, that if you are the most qualified person but you are a
White guy, you are going to have a tough time, a tougher row to
hoe.
DEI is a Marxist ideology, and the reason it is Marxist is
they want to destroy America and they want to divide America.
And one way to divide America is to have everybody not identify
as, say, Mr. Lohmeier himself. They want them to identify on--I
do not even know what your ethnic background is--Mr. Lohmeier,
comma, Hispanic American, or Mr. Lohmeier, comma, Native
American. And the Marxists realize that once we get that in
America, where everybody thinks every election or every
promotion is a battle between ethnic groups, we have destroyed
America, and that is where we are going.
I wish I would have brought up earlier, like I said, the
new head of the Joint Chiefs says a goal should be 42 percent
White officers. In other words, he is outright saying that we
are going to discriminate against you because you are a White
guy. He is outright saying that the person who gets the
promotion is not necessarily going to be the best person for
the job. And, inevitably, it is going to create divisions
within the military because it causes people to say, ``I should
be promoted because of my background.''
Furthermore, this diversity thing, I suppose in some ways
diversity is OK. But in other ways, I do not see what it has to
do with anything. OK, if we have two people applying for the
Air Force Academy, who both grew up in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin,
lived on the same block, both played on the football team, both
played saxophone in the school band, but one of them has a
Hispanic grandfather, well, all of a sudden in order to
increase diversity that is the guy that has got to be promoted
first, with the idea that if they have diverse backgrounds it
would bring something different to the military because one guy
happened to have a grandfather who was born in Mexico 100 years
ago is preposterous. But that is the ideology that is being
pushed today and will inevitably destroy the military and will
inevitably destroy America.
So, I would like to thank you three folks for being here. I
do not believe that forever--I sure hope Mr. Garcia is not
right--forever we are in a position in which we define people
by where their great-grandparents come from and believe that if
my--this is not true--but if my grandfather was from Mexico, I
do not speak Spanish, I have never been to Mexico in my life,
but somehow, therefore, I have a unique viewpoint that I have
to promoted against other people in the military. That is
ridiculous and it is scary, and it is absurd, and I wish more
people would say it, and I wish they would call out people on
what exactly they mean by diversity, how because I have an
ancestor born in Thailand or something, it makes me a better
sergeant. That is just absurd, but that is the ridiculous
ideology that is taking over America.
OK. Now, with that and without objection, all Members have
5 legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses.
If there are no further business, without objection--I
cannot believe that people think it matters where my ancestors
come from when we promote somebody, but--OK, without objection,
this Subcommittee stands adjourned.
Thank you all for being here.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]