Posted on 12/16/2025 9:24:56 AM PST by Kazan
Five months ago, in these pages I expressed concern that Congress was missing the opportunity to restore merit to the military personnel system. To accomplish that task I urged Congress to include a meritocracy provision in the 2026 NDAA that does four things: (1) require all military personnel actions to be based exclusively on merit; (2) forbid race and sex-based preferences; (3) provide for reasonable exceptions when mission success requires sex or race be considered; and (4) define key terms so idealogues in the Pentagon cannot manipulate the language to further their diversity agenda.
When the House and Senate passed their versions of the NDAA, it appeared that between the two chambers some progress toward establishing a merit-based personnel system was being made. When the compromise bill resolving the differences between the House and Senate version, S. 1017, was released last week, it was readily apparent that Congress had no intention of requiring merit principles to govern military personnel actions. To make matters worse, the drafters employed smoke and mirrors to put a merit-sounding title on a provision that just reinforces the Biden-era identity preference status quo.
What’s Not in the NDAA
The bill passed by the House had a provision that would have specifically forbidden the use of race or ethnicity in personnel actions except for certain special operations missions. It also required all personnel actions to be based “exclusively on individual merit, fitness, capability, and performance.”
While it did not address sex-based preferences, it did put Congress on the same page as the administration insofar as racial discrimination was concerned.
The initial Senate version, on the other hand, lacked any attempt to restore a meritocracy or to eliminate identity preferences. Had the final version negotiated between the House and the Senate accepted the House provision it would have been a big improvement. Instead, what we got was a provision that, when viewed in context, sends the unmistakable message that race and sex-based preferences are alive and well in the military personnel system.
Gaslighting on Merit
To appreciate the sleight of hand the Congress pulled off, one must look at how its members framed the issue. Section 525 of the final version of the bill is titled “Requirement of equal opportunity, racial neutrality, and exclusive use of merit in military personnel actions.” Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, it is the text of the legislation and not the title that is important. All this section does is add “command selection” to Section 529C of the 2024 NDAA so that the provision now reads, “MERIT REQUIREMENT. — A military accession, promotion, or command selection in the Department of Defense shall be based on individual merit and demonstrated performance.”
Note what this provision does not say. It does not say that personnel actions shall be exclusively based on merit and demonstrated performance. It does not say that racial and sex-based preferences shall not be applied in military personnel actions. It does not define “merit” and “demonstrated performance.” And it does not provide for reasonable and legitimate exceptions, such as assigning women to Female Engagement Teams and blacks to a special operations mission in Africa where the ability to blend in with the local population might be critical to mission success.
You may ask, “Why must Congress be so specific? The language seems straightforward, and a reasonable interpretation would not allow for discrimination or preferences.” When, however, ideologues get to interpret the statute, they will manipulate the language to further their ideological goals.
We know this because of what happened after President Biden signed the 2024 NDAA into law on December 22, 2023. From that point forward “military accession” and “promotion” were to be based on “individual merit and demonstrated performance.” Furthermore, “DOD Instruction 1350.02,” the Department of Defense (now called the Department of War under the Trump administration) policy on Equal Opportunity, required service members to be “evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, capability, and performance.” The statutory language and the department’s instruction would seem to make merit the standard. But things are not always as they seem.
Because neither the federal law nor the department’s policy specifically prohibited race and sex-based preferences and Congress did not define key terms, Pentagon ideologues continued with business as usual. Neither the 2024 NDAA provision nor the Department of War’s policy language contradicted the “diversity is a strategic imperative” mantra of the Biden Pentagon. Despite the language of the 2024 NDAA and the Pentagon policy, the senior leadership in the Pentagon and the Department of Justice argued in federal court that racial preferences were appropriate in granting admission to West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. “Diversity is our strength,” they said.
In their interpretation of both the federal statutory law and Biden’s Defense Department policy, considering skin color to achieve diversity was part of the “merit” calculation. “Performance” was weighed not in relation to any objective standard, but relative to the amount of melanin in an applicant’sskin. When Congress fails to define key terms, ideologues can manipulate the language to achieve their goals. Clever lawyering can even convince federal judges to go along with the scam.
By adding “command selection” to a statute Department of War has already twisted to allow using racial preferences does not change anything. Furthermore, codifying the language of the DOW policy without defining the terms allows the DOW bureaucrats to supply their own definition.
What Is in the NDAA
To be sure, Congress did repeal or amend many of the statutory provisions establishing the DEI infrastructure and placed restrictions on the ability of the civilian leadership to administratively create DEI offices. That’s a good thing. But the final bill, unlike the earlier Senate version, does not remove the requirement for selection boards to have “diverse” membership. The message is clear: Race and sex-based diversity is still a priority in personnel actions.
Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over Again but Expecting Different Results
The next three years under the Trump administration’s executive orders and Pete Hegseth’s policy memoranda merit principles will apply. When a new administration comes to town all bets are off. The Trump EOs and the Hegseth policy memos will be revoked with the stroke of a pen. The race and sex preference crowd will be back in charge, and nothing will stand in the way of reinstating their agenda. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The Trump administration has used its executive authority to eliminate identity preferences and restore merit to military personnel policy. Congress, on the other hand, has used gaslighting press releases to mislead the public. It is difficult to determine which is worse, refusing to restore military meritocracy or lying about it.
Is it any wonder the Republican party is facing annihilation in the mid-terms?
If Kamala can't be President, she can always become a general.
Is it any wonder the Republican party is facing annihilation in the mid-terms?
—————————————————————————————-
I’m not even mad anymore. 5they are just politicians, same as the democrats, just not as crazy and they have way less guts to do anything that may rock the boat.
I am caring less and less the older I get. Why am I gonna worry and spike my blood pressure if the majority doesn’t really give a damn.
If you expect it to change immediately you are delusional.
Should it? Yes.
Will it? No.
SOP has a power all of it's own when it has been running for seventy years.
Got a message from one of the gop reps from here about the great work they are doing. I responded I am either not voting or voting for the dem. I am tired of the drip drip drip to killing the country, lets do it all at once in one big binge.
That Party is beyond reform. So are the Ds. I've been saying for years, stand back and watch both editions implode.
Confirmation of the “Uniparty.”
no law can limit the presidents constitutional authority over the armed forced.
A future liberal president could ignore any such law and promote whoever they want for whatever reason they want
It’s not clear this was an intentional oversight or just poorly crafted legislation.
But that’s why Congress has all those staff members, to review these things.
Good article. These racist provisions should trigger a veto from President Trump. Let’s see what he does.
That's what I'm being told to believe. Considering the sources, not sure that I do believe it.
Young men will fix this.
Of course the Freepers here will whine and cry at the way they do it.
https://rumble.com/v72xxpk-identity-politics-ep.-53-us-and-them-w-the-prudentialist.html
Those who did not fix the problems do not get to sit at the table when the new plans to fix them get made.
While the best get thrown aside
Politicians don’t write legislation; lobbyists do.
Then they pay politicians to pass their legislation.
Since Democrats use money to get power and Republicans use power to get money, guess which side prevails?
He’ll sign it.
Veto it. Simple. Veto it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
I’m praying President Trump intends to do so because that nonsense is going to piss off millions of his most ardent supporters.
Well stated. Very succinct.
The feckless GOP is determined to destroy Trump’s presidency, and return to the golden days of the GOP being an innocuous back-bench do-nothing group, desperately holding on to its congressional minority privileges...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.