On January 20, 2025, President-elect Donald Trump will inherit a U.S. military grappling with serious challenges related to force readiness, recruitment, and retention. These issues have been largely attributed to a range of factors, including the rise of cultural Marxism and the implementation of ideologies such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) within military ranks. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s 2021 vaccine mandate, which has since been rescinded, also added to the tension. Matt Lohmeier, a former Space Force commander who was dismissed for critiquing the military’s embrace of wokeness, suggests these ideologies have infiltrated the military as they did in academic institutions, creating divisions among service members based on race, ethnic backgrounds, and gender identities. This divisive approach undermines the unity essential for military effectiveness, and Lohmeier warns that fragmentation through ideological divisions could lead to the military’s destruction.
Lohmeier further emphasizes that while diversity and inclusion can be beneficial, their current applications often carry divisive agendas that compromise cohesion. The military’s long-standing commitment to meritocracy has been increasingly sidelined by quota systems, disguised under terminology like “force planning.” This transition away from merit-based selection processes has serious implications for military effectiveness, including the erosion of true diversity. Nic Gray, a former non-commissioned officer and the CEO of Uniformed Services Justice & Advocacy Group (USJAG), echoes these concerns, highlighting how a shift in focus away from unit cohesion, discipline, and readiness has detrimentally affected recruitment standards and retention rates.
With alarming numbers of service members choosing to exit early, primarily due to dissension over politicized ideologies that conflict with core military values, the retention issue has emerged as critical. Both Lohmeier and Gray reflect on the disillusionment felt among capable military leaders, many of whom are disheartened by the abandonment of meritocracy and the perception that they are undervalued due to their identity not fitting a specific demographic. This loss of exceptional leaders not only disrupts leadership continuity but also potentially results in greater incompetency within ranks, as those replacing them may not possess the necessary skills or experience.
This dynamic fosters a concerning situation where less qualified non-commissioned officers—often positioned to lead underqualified recruits—form subpar units, resulting in detrimental consequences for overall military capability and national security. Gray articulates his belief that the military currently confronts a dangerous juncture and identifies the abandonment of merit-based promotions as a central threat to operational integrity. He raises alarms about mid-level officers, motivated by personal gain, who enforce fraudulent discharges against injured service members in an effort to maintain perceived force readiness metrics.
Fraudulent discharges, Gray believes, not only undermine the rights of individual service members but also harm their families and ultimately compromise national security by destabilizing recruitment and retention efforts. He points to a systemic failure within the Department of Defense, which often overlooks the rights of service members in favor of expediently achieving goals that serve the interests of mid-level officers. The issue highlights the necessity for independent oversight in the discharge processes to ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards, which he asserts has been lacking too long, creating an environment of abuse and manipulation.
Both Lohmeier and Gray agree that remedying the military’s gravest challenges will require significant time and commitment, urging that the upcoming administration take strong action to restore focus on effective warfighting and readiness. Lohmeier insists that the chain of command must prioritize mission effectiveness over political ideologies that have previously permeated military culture. By stepping away from past political activism, military leadership can concentrate on revitalizing the force’s lethality and operational readiness, ensuring that the military can fulfill its fundamental roles effectively in the face of contemporary challenges.