The Problem with Lloyd Austin’s ‘Stand-Down’ Order

F ollowing a meeting with top Pentagon officials last week, newly confirmed Defense secretary Lloyd Austin directed a Department-wide “stand down” to address the issue of extremism and white supremacy in the ranks of the U.S. military. This comes after multiple news outlets reported that a handful of veteran and active-duty military members were active participants in the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol building. While Pentagon press secretary John F. Kirby remained adamant that “the vast majority of men and women who serve in uniform and the military are doing so with honor, integrity, and character,” he said the issue of members with extremist viewpoints is “not an insignificant problem and has to be addressed.” While the efforts by Secretary Austin are well-intentioned, it is common knowledge what the road to hell is paved with.

Indeed, looking closely into this order raises serious doubts as to whether it will work in the way intended. According to Kirby, the stand-down will occur over the course of the next several months and will require military leaders to take time from normal military operations to “have these needed discussions with the men and women of the force.” It’s possible that this will go further than having personnel sit through a 50-slide PowerPoint and take a five-question quiz to demonstrate that a modicum of knowledge was imparted, a familiar experience for those of service backgrounds. But there’s reason to suspect a bit more. In a memorandum addressed to senior Pentagon leadership and Department of Defense directors, Secretary Austin outlined that all commanding officers and supervisors within the Department would be required to conduct this one-day stand-down event within 60 days of the memorandum’s release. The topics of discussion, while mostly left to the discretion of military leaders, should include “the importance of our oath of office; a description of impermissible behaviors; and procedures for reporting suspected, or actual, extremist behaviors in accordance with [Department of Defense Instruction 1325.06].” But it’s not clear what beliefs or activities will fall under the umbrella of “extremist ideologies.” Given the tumultuous and partisan moment in which Americans find themselves, it’s an open question whether this exercise is less concerned with actual hate groups than simply with those holding unfavorable political views.

The ambiguity of what constitutes an extremist ideology is baked into the governing law that Austin cited in his memorandum. According to the aforementioned Department of Defense Instruction, military personnel must avoid “actively [advocating] supremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes” that pursue disparate treatment on the basis of “race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.” Fair enough. One need not think very long or hard to see how a member of the military active in the Ku Klux Klan or another neo-Nazi group would actively cause unit degradation in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic military organization. However, the list of prohibited activities goes further. In the same paragraph, the instruction prohibits any other activity that advances “efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.” This provision seems sufficiently broad to produce unintended consequences, the results of which the American people will know soon enough if Austin continues with his initiative without defining his parameters.

Here’s one possible unintended consequence. Suppose a military member strongly believes that transgender athletes, formerly male who now identify as female, should not participate in women’s sports. This member does not discuss the issue in the workplace, nor articulate this viewpoint to any of coworkers or military leadership. However, following President Biden’s executive order that will strong-arm schools that receive federal funding into allowing biological men to play women’s sports, the military member posts on Facebook disagreeing with Biden’s decision. According to the plain reading of the instruction, in conjunction with language in the EO that cites Supreme Court precedent which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender,” the military member has just advocated for the deprivation of another’s civil rights. As a result, this member faces administrative action, potential loss of pay and rank, and maybe even expulsion from the armed services. The slippery slope is real. Similar outcomes are easy to conceive. Any Christian military member who espouses a traditional view of marriage would, after the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, put him or herself at risk of running afoul of the Austin instruction. Similar fates may exist for anyone who believes that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles — or, heck, that Social Security should be abolished. The Austin order threatens to make “extremists” of many.

That’s because the limiting principle of Secretary Lloyd’s action is unknown. Is it likely that those railing against Social Security benefits are going to be labeled as “extremists” by the secretary’s initiative? Unlikely. But how do we know? How are military members to know whether a benign political opinion or an off-the-cuff comment that comes nowhere near extremist or supremacist rhetoric won’t be swept up together with actually abhorrent belief structures that do indeed degrade military effectiveness? The only foreseeable outcome of Secretary Austin’s initiative is the creation of distrust in the ranks. If particular statements made to a co-worker, colleague, or commander could be used as fodder in the name of weeding out extremism, it’s hard to see how comradery in the ranks isn’t simply replaced by paranoia and fear. Why would members want to participate in a stand-down event and give an honest opinion, in any capacity, if that opinion could ultimately put them on the wrong side of a court-martial?

Indeed, it is common knowledge what the road to hell is paved with. Secretary Austin’s push to eliminate extremism, well-intentioned as it is, will be detrimental to the ability of our armed forces to carry out their mission and conduct their business. The uncertainty and ambiguity characteristic of the entire effort is not going to have the desired effect of making sure military members identify and report extremism (whatever this phrase may mean) to higher authorities. Instead, a culture of mistrust and self-consciousness will prevail, weakening our armed forces and emboldening our enemies. Real extremism, of the sort that actually can weaken military effectiveness and should be addressed, may exist in the ranks of our military. But without clear guidance and vision as to how to accurately characterize and address this issue, American military members are left in a state of limbo.