[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]