Before leaving town for the year, the US House of Representatives on Thursday approved the National Defense Authorization Act on a bipartisan basis (310-118), with 73 Republicans voting against it. This outcome angered many GOP conservatives who feared passage of a weak National Defense Authorization Act almost completely devoid of any meaningful Republican input. As it turns out, that’s what happened.
While the bill allows for pay increases for troops, it does little to restrict the Pentagon’s diversity initiatives, abortion travel policy, and gender-gendering measures for service members.
After being approved by the Senate on Wednesday (87-13), the legislation now goes to the Oval Office for the president’s signature.
Response: The vaccine mandate…and its repercussions
As a Senate vote on the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act approaches, US military service members have expressed anger at the language used in the bill in the wake of the now-rescinded military vaccine authorization. While many military service members expressed similar views to American Family News, Colonel Thomas Rempfer (USAF Ret.)* spoke out about the $886 billion defense bill, citing what he calls “the ongoing unhealthy moral dilemma.”
He notes that “the Department of Defense (DOD) has historically been given undue discretion and deference in matters of national defense, but then the Department in turn abuses its authority by violating the laws Congress put on the books in order to protect the health rights of our troops.”
Having served in the US Air Force for 32 years, Rempfer says that “over many decades, [the DOD] “It has proven culturally incapable of handling wrongs because of its proven illegal policies.” He points to the illegal authorization of the anthrax vaccine that began in 1998 as an example.
Now, 25 years later, Rempfer is expressing similar disdain in the wake of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s one-time COVID-19 vaccine requirements imposed on thousands of service members in 2021 and 2022.
Thousands have been fired or forced to retire for refusing to receive the vaccine. The Fiscal Year 2024 version of the National Defense Authorization Act provides for the reinstatement of people who have been involuntarily separated from service. According to the current proposal, “upon the request of a covered individual within two years following the date of the covered individual’s involuntary separation, the Secretary concerned shall consider reinstating such covered individual to employment.”
For Rempfer, this kind of language is weak and an insult to those who were kicked out of the military. “The 2024 NDAA authorization language should be more direct [and should read] “It has to be reset,” he explains.
Honorable discharges were sporadic as service members were dismissed from service for refusing to pose for a photo. In addition to potentially being reinstated, the annual defense bill also offers upgraded discharges if “dismissal or dismissal is based solely on such former member’s failure to comply with a lawful order to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.”
Rempfer argues that “discharge descriptions should be made unilaterally to a completely honorable level for all forces, without enforcement, in order to ensure that there is no injustice.”
“All troops deserve an immediate and fully honorable discharge description, restoration of educational benefits, and the right to return to the Armed Forces upon request and without further delay,” he adds.
The retired Air Force officer also scoffs at the claim that military vaccine authorization was ever legal. On the contrary, it suggests that the order was illegal, in directional violation of 10 USC 1107a.
“The order also specifically violates the express requirements of the SecDef Implementation Guidance, which requires fully approved and properly labeled coronavirus vaccinations,” he explains. “No fully approved rounds were ever provided to forces within the authorization deadlines, and instead only an unapproved Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) product was provided.”
“Congress should amend the existing 2024 National Defense Authorization Act to assert the strict, constitutionally required civilian control over the military,” Rempfer argues. He asserts that “this belated leadership by Congress is the best way to stop the pattern of willful violation of the law by senior DoD leaders.”
He also asserts that corrections should not be linked exclusively to COVID-19 authorization denials, given that DoD chains of command have a track record of manufacturing a pattern of misconduct tangentially related to the underlying denial.
He asserts: “If refusal to comply with a clearly unlawful order is the underlying issue that led to the discharge, then the entire career service record should be expunged.”
Additionally, he suggests that current members of Congress “digest the Department of Defense’s historical patterns of misconduct, as well as its manipulation of Congress, regarding the health rights of our troops” — and then, “the Legislature should also implement reforms to remove the Department of Defense’s liaison office.” Congress is the lobbying arm of Capitol Hill, and Defense Department liaisons are also required to wear uniforms while working in the halls of Congress.
Rempfer says such reforms would limit “excessive DoD interference in congressional activities” and also ensure that members of Congress “are aware of the extent of the DoD’s presence on Capitol Hill and the depth of their unhealthy influence in congressional decision-making processes.” “.
*Thomas Rempfer emphasizes that his opinions do not imply endorsement by the Department of Defense.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has passed through Congress and is now heading to President Biden’s desk for final approval. Despite intense debate and negotiation, the bill does not include language aimed at bringing back vaccination refusers into the military. This omission comes amidst ongoing concerns about the impact of unvaccinated service members on military readiness and the potential for COVID-19 outbreaks within the ranks. As the NDAA awaits the President’s signature, the absence of specific language addressing vaccination refusers has sparked further discussion and speculation about the implications for the military and public health.