How to End Wokism in the Military: Trump White House and Congress Should Work Together to Strengthen Our Military

By Elaine Donnelly, President
Center for Military Readiness

The outgoing 118^th Congress has voted for solid steps in favor of common sense in our military.  The Center for Military Readiness looks forward to seeing more progress in the right direction as the second Trump Administration takes office in 2025.

Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth, if confirmed, shares President Trump’s determination to eliminate wokeism in the military.  Woke mandates, which take progressivism to extremes, have burdened our military with misplaced priorities, race-based discrimination, divisive indoctrination, and unprecedented moral dilemmas.

President Trump can and should address these issues with Executive Orders, but he cannot unilaterally repeal statutory language.  The new 119^th Congress will need to work with the administration to write well-defined legislation that restores sound priorities and withstands legal challenges in court.  Where to begin?

A national movement advocating for sound policies that strengthen the unique culture of our military has become stronger and very evident in results of the 2024 elections.  The Center for Military Readiness has compiled suggestions for action in this 18-page CMR Special Report:

• CMR Special Report: Trump and Congress Should Work Together to Strengthen Our Military

The report summarizes the background, status, and future options for addressing major military/social issues, including gender dysphoria and transgenderism in the military plus women in (infantry) combat units that engage in deliberate offensive action against the enemy.

President-elect Trump, his Pentagon appointees at all levels, and lawmakers in the new Congress must work together to identify social issue problems, eliminate “woke pork,” and restore sound priorities that put meritocracy, morale, and overall readiness first:

A.  Dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DIE) Mandates and Power Bases

Evidence has mounted that current Department of Defense (DoD) “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies and programs, which cost $114.7 million in 2024 and are slated to increase to $162 million, have created a “race and sex-based scapegoating and stereotyping” environment that is harming military effectiveness.

DEI attitudes and virtue signaling are hurting the military as an institution.  DoD bureaucrats and highly paid professional DEI consultants keep promoting without evidence a mantra that inverted priorities many years ago: “Diversity is a strategic imperative.”  New evidence suggests that constant time-and money-wasting meetings and reports promoting the DEI mantra have increased animosity, division, and demoralization among the troops.

The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University recently released scientific research in an eye-opening report titled “Instructing Animosity, How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias.”  Data shows that DEI training methods covering subjects like race, religion, and caste may cause psychological harm, hostility, and punitive attitudes among participants.

Such attitudes are toxic in the military, where cohesion and mutual trust are necessary for personnel to survive and succeed in combat.  More recruiters and waiver adjustments have improved recruiting, but the All-Volunteer Force will not survive if officials keep politicizing recruiting practices to meet DEI goals.

Congress Should End Racial Discrimination and Affirm Meritocracy

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that racial discrimination in higher education is unconstitutional. (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard & the University of N. Carolina.

In all legal challenges, the Defense Department, represented by the U.S. Solicitor General, has been claiming without evidence that DEI bean-counting of various racial or ethnic groups in both officer and enlisted ranks contributes something essential to military readiness.

In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, the Court declared racial discrimination to be unconstitutional, and the Justices’ assessment of superficial race-based discrimination categories did not equivocate.  Discriminatory categories, said the Court, are “imprecise. . . overbroad . . . arbitrary . . . undefined . . . underinclusive . . . incoherent . . . [and/or] irrational stereotypes.”

However, since the military service academies were not parties to the landmark case, the same student plaintiffs have filed litigation against the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy.

Litigation will take time, but Congress has the power and responsibility to make policy for the military that affirms meritocracy and prohibits racial discrimination.  The 119th Congress should enact a carefully defined statute defining and affirming meritocracy as the sole or exclusive factor in admissions and promotions and prohibiting racial discrimination in the armed forces.

Far-sighted attention to detail will be necessary to craft a well-defined policy that will further combat effectiveness in the military while withstanding legal challenges that certainly will come.

Eliminate “Woke Pork”

In October, a medical research group called Do No Harm released a report titled Equity Everywhere: 500 Ways the Biden-Harris Administration Infused DEI Into the Federal Government.   The 70-page report examines Equity Action Plans in all government departments, including the Department of Defense, which President Joe Biden triggered with his Executive Orders 13985 and 14091.

One of these, the Defense Department’s Equity Action Plan 2023 Update, uses the phrase “underserved communities” 17 times on 24 pages.  The DoD’s dubious DEI projects include DEI obsessions with everything from gender identity and sexual orientation to “climate change,” reproductive health care (travel for abortions) Workers’ organizing rights (labor unions?) Support for the “Women, Peace, and Security Act, and DoD action to establish a permanent “Gender Advisor Workforce.”

Boondoggles such as this are examples of “woke pork” – expensive DEI programs that only benefit Pentagon bureaucrats and professional consultants who receive lucrative grants to provide them.  (Political commentator Matt Walsh spoofed these highly paid experts in his hilarious 2024 documentary, “Am I a Racist?”)

The military does not need a Diversity Industrial Complex providing jobs for countless women’s studies graduates, CRT academics, and DEI consultants charging huge fees to conduct seminars presenting discredited private business-oriented theories.

Reasons for Confidence – DEI in Disfavor

The 2024 election results and several public opinion surveys have shown strong support for the dismantling of DEI.

• A YouGov Survey of military veterans revealed that a large majority of respondents (57%) said that DEI efforts are not essential for warfighting or military operations, and 94% of veterans were opposed to racial and gender preferences in promotions.

• The survey found that the percentage of veterans recommending military service dropped 20 points in five years, to just 62%.  More than 80% of veterans who have turned negative on military service cited “mistrust of political leadership” as a “major factor.”

• Trends in private companies and institutions show that the Defense Department is behind the times.  Major corporations, such as Ford Motor, Boeing, Caterpillar, John Deere, Toyota, and Walmart have reduced or eliminated DEI-related activities and financial commitments that contribute nothing to racial harmony or the bottom line.

• Other major institutions, including at least 158 colleges in 22 states, have scaled back or closed their DEI offices.  The University System of Georgia, for example, recently banned DEI tactics and committed to mandatory education on the U.S. Constitution.

Where We Stand on DEI and What Can Be Done

Because the survival of the All-Volunteer Force is at risk, Congress and the Defense Department must improve public support and recruiting by eliminating DEI offices and personnel whose ideological activities are wasting everyone’s time and weakening morale.

• A section of the House National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 would have prohibited racial discrimination in service academy admissions and ensured that sufficient weight (30%) be given to standardized test scores.  Negotiators omitted the provision, but it deserves support next year.

• Consolidated sections of the NDAA for 2025 extend a hiring freeze on DEI offices and permit future elimination of them.  However, negotiators did not approve a measure eliminating Chief Diversity Officers.  CDOs are empowered to advance or stall promotable officers’ careers, depending on their level of support for DEI.

• President Trump and Congress should eliminate DEI power bases that keep promoting DEI ideology, including the Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity & Inclusion (DACODAI).  As CMR reported in a Statement for the Record of the DACODAI, the committee has been advancing the same agenda as the 2011 Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC), which called for the elimination of “color-blind” personnel policies to advance race-sensitive “diversity” as the highest priority.

• A 2023 congressional proposal to “sunset” the DACODAI did not succeed but Congress should take up the issue again in the coming year.

On Executive Orders: President-elect Trump has a mandate to rescind several DEI-mandating Executive Orders that Joe Biden imposed early in his Administration, starting with the most radical of its kind, EO No. 14091, analyzed here:

• CMR: DEI Executive Order Expands Diversity Industrial Complex

Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute has reported that the DEI Cash Cow has become a racket.  President Trump has a mandate to end DEI scams and restore sound priorities.

B.  Drop Divisive Critical Race Theory and “Anti-Extremist” Programs in DoD Education

DEI programs often are supported by ideology and indoctrination in “critical race theory” (CRT) polemics published by woke gurus such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo.

As CMR reported in this Policy Analysis, Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools, formerly under the direction of self-described woke activist Kelisa Wing, have used CRT programs that divide personnel into hostile groups, separating them by race and “privilege” and describing them as the “oppressors” and the “oppressed.”

• In July, the watchdog group Open the Books published Schools for Radicals, which documented numerous ways that the Pentagon has institutionalized DEI in its Public School programs while denying that it exists.

• The Claremont Institute investigated and issued a report on woke indoctrination at K-12 DoDEA schools titled Grooming Future Revolutionaries–The American Way of Life.

• CRT programs typically denigrate the “racist” United States, America’s historic founding documents, its Founding Fathers, and even capitalism and traditions like Thanksgiving.  False narratives are even more problematic in DoDEA schools, since they could alienate children from their military parents who are fighting for an allegedly “racist” nation.

Anti-Extremism Taken to Extremes

During his first term, President Trump ended funding for all federal agency CRT training and propaganda.  These included programs teaching or suggesting that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country, or that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.

Trump also signed an Executive Order establishing the 1776 Advisory Commission – a scholarly panel chaired by Hillsdale President Larry P. Arnn.  The 1776 Commission’s report, which countered the New York Times’ controversial 1619 Project, produced sound recommendations for strengthening the teaching of American history and values in schools.

In 2021, unfortunately, President Biden wasted no time revoking Trump’s CRT Executive Order and abolishing the 1776 Commission.  Shortly thereafter, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered worldwide standdown sessions to hunt for “extremists” in the ranks.

• Austin’s Countering Extremist Activity Working Group (CEAWG) turned up less than 100 cases of actual extremists – not counting suspected “MAGA sympathizers” and parents who don’t want biological boys and men invading their daughters athletic teams and private living facilities.

• In July, Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) and 86 other lawmakers signed a letter protesting an Army base’s use of briefing slides suggesting that pro-life organizations are extremist terrorist groups.  The Army was forced to admit the practice and end it.

• A similar incident occurred in 2013, but the Army, apparently, forgot its promise to stop labeling evangelical Christian groups as domestic hate groups.

Extremism has no place in our military, but politically skewed reports that examine only one side of the extremist spectrum but not the other benefit only the “experts” who produce them.

Where we Stand on CRT and “Anti-Extremism” Programs and What Can Be Done

Negotiators approved a measure in the NDAA for 2025 prohibiting funds for Secretary Austin’s April 2021 Countering Extremism Working Group.  Some liberal critics have tried to discredit efforts to terminate “anti-extremist” programs by claiming there has not been enough attention given to January 6 troublemakers with military backgrounds.

• They seem less concerned about the radicalism of military psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, a self-identified “Soldier of Allah,” who killed 13 adults and one unborn child while shouting the jihadist war cry, “Alahu Akbar”  at Fort Hood, TX, in November 2009.

• We also need to know why Air Force Specialist Aaron Bushnell, a pro-Palestine anti-Semitic extremist, was allowed to serve in an Intelligence Support Squadron until he set himself on fire in uniform and died in front of the Israeli Embassy in February 2024.

In 2023, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) successfully sponsored legislation protecting Parents Rights in DODEA schools.  The consolidated NDAA for 2025 includes a House prohibition on teaching CRT in all DoD schools, but the “academic freedom” clause may neutralize its intent.

Negotiators omitted a House prohibition on DEI programs in DoDEA schools, but it does call for more education of newly commissioned officers in the Constitution and military law.

On Executive Orders: The Trump Team should identify and eliminate all CRT instructions and programs, even if the names are changed to disguise the curriculum, and support future congressional efforts to defund and dismantle toxic CRT programs in all government agencies.

In addition, numerous events celebrating America’s 250^th Birthday in 2026, starting with a Great American State Fair, will be prime opportunities to encourage the accurate teaching of American history and patriotism.

C.  Gender Dysphoria and Transgenders in the Military

During his first administration, President Trump confronted and reversed many of the military/social policies accommodating transgenders or persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria.  Confusion about gender identity is one of many physical and psychological conditions that can make a person ineligible for military service.

• In 2016, the Obama/Biden Administration amended DoD Instruction 1350.02 to add “gender identity” to Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) non-discrimination categories – something it had previously promised not to do.  As CMR explained in a detailed Policy Analysis, implementation directives were based on the unscientific notion that a clerical change in a person’s “gender marker” could actually change that person’s sex.

• In 2017, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis established a panel of experts to research and produce a detailed 45-page report on the costs and consequences of Obama administration policies regarding persons identifying as transgender or diagnosed with gender dysphoria.  The panel of experts’ report was covered by a February 22, 2018, Memorandum from Secretary Mattis to President Trump.

• Shortly thereafter, President Trump issued a March 2018 Memorandum establishing a new policy limiting military recruitment or retention of persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria.  As this 2019 CMR Fact Sheet explained, the nuanced Trump policy:

a)   Allowed persons identifying as “transgender” but without gender dysphoria to serve in their biological sex, if they were “stable” for 36 months and met requirements for deployability;

b)   Disqualified persons with gender dysphoria from military service; and

c)    Retained “grandfathered” personnel identifying as transgender and receiving treatment under previous administration policies. (emphasis added)

It is important to understand that the nuanced Trump Policy was  not a ban on transgenders as a class.  It centered on gender dysphoria and treated persons with that condition the same as others with disqualifying medical conditions.

Transgender activists filed litigation challenging the policy, but their lawsuits were not successful.  There is no way to guarantee a future court decision, but the  Concurring Opinion of Judge Stephen E. Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Jane Doe 2 v. Trump (March 8, 2019) suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on the merits of pending cases, Trump’s nuanced policy, which focused on gender dysphoria, likely would have been upheld as constitutional.

Biden Administration Radically Changes Course

As CMR explained in this Policy Analysis, in 2021 the incoming Biden/Harris Administration immediately abolished Trump’s policy with an Executive Order re-establishing and extending President Obama’s policies accommodating transgenders in the military.

• The Biden policy fully embraced woke pseudo-science – the idea that individuals can change their sex by changing their appearance and gender role associated with their “sex assigned at birth.”  Commanders, medical professionals and chaplains must comply with this philosophy or suffer career penalties if they don’t.

• Treating gender dysphoria as different from other disqualifying physical and psychological conditions that affect deployability constitutes special treatment, not equality.

• Biden’s policy changed official DoD vocabulary to reflect transgender ideology and allowed cross-dressing and other “transitioning” behaviors on-base as well as off-base. Policies authorized politicized “pro-transition” psychological or surgical treatments, but also pays for “de-transitioning” treatments if gender dysphoria remains unresolved.

• Disregarding women’s privacy rights, several Executive Orders and DoD regulations explicitly opened doors to sexual minorities who want “access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports” reserved for the opposite sex.

• The DoD also restricted collection and disclosure of data on “incidents of harmful behaviors” involving sexual orientation or transgender persons.

Joe Biden’s transgender policies in conflict with medical ethics or religious convictions have created moral dilemmas, and parents have reasons for concern about DoDEA school teachers steering children toward transgenderism without the parents’ knowledge or consent.

These demoralizing policies explicitly allow biological men to enter women’s private living areas, showers, and athletic teams.  It appears, however, that DoD-enforced non-disclosure mandates are sweeping under the rug any and all problems related to transgender policies.

Where We Stand on Gender Dysphoria/Transgender Policies and What Can Be Done

The consolidated NDAA for 2025 does not include the House provision to end DoD TRICARE payments for transgender treatments and surgeries, but it does include language to prohibit TRICARE funds for medical procedures that could result in the sterilization of children.  The new President and Congress should support and expand prohibitions on DoD funds for treatments and surgeries purporting to change sex.

On Executive Orders: The DoD should be required to produce updated, non-personal data on costs associated with gender dysphoria treatments and travel costs, time off for medical treatments or “real-life experience” (RLE), incidents of misconduct affecting the majority as well as the minority, and costs incurred due to non-deployability.

• Under former Defense Secretary James Mattis, a panel of experts reported significant costs associated with the Obama transgender policy, from October 1, 2015, to October 3, 2017.  During this time, 994 active-duty service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria accounted for 30,000 mental health visits, and medical costs for these personnel increased threefold, or 300%.

• President Trump should obtain and release updated non-personal Defense Department data and related information for public review and discussion.

• After reviewing and releasing the updated information, Trump should consider reinstating his own 2018 policy, legislatively or by Executive Order, with an eye toward effective legal defense when activist groups file inevitable lawsuits.

• The President should revoke Biden Executive Orders, DoD Instructions, and implementing regulations ordering bureaucrats and military personnel to a) Ignore biological differences between men and women, especially in matters involving private living spaces reserved for women; b) Sex-integrate women’s athletic teams or c) Mandate use of ungrammatical pronouns that deny biological realities.

• The Trump Administration and Congress also should re-consider previously sponsored House NDAA measures that would prohibit inappropriate flag displays, “LGBT Pride” demonstrations, and other sexualized, politically divisive events.  Drag queen performances for adults and children attending DoDEA schools, which disrespect women and encourage indiscipline, are unprofessional and inappropriate on military bases.

D.  Concerns About Women in Direct Ground Combat – DoD Disregards the Research

It is important to understand and acknowledge the difference between DGC units such as the infantry and the experience of being “in harm’s way,” exposed to contingent or incident related combat in a war zone.

As then-Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford wrote in September 2015:

“[The] extreme physical demands and the brutal nature of the fundamental mission of the infantry, to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat, have not diminished with technological advancements through the years; to the contrary, the overall demands and especially the unique physical demands have only increased for those at the very tip of the MAGTF spear.” (emphasis added)

From 2012 to 2015, the Marine Corps conducted a three-year scientific study of the issue, including nine months of Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force (GCEITF) field tests that compared the performance of male and female trainees performing tasks simulating close combat demands.

University of Pittsburgh researchers tried to prove a simple hypothesis: “An integrated unit under gender-neutral standards will perform equally as well as a gender-restricted unit.”  However, despite positive expectations for field tests conducted with well-qualified female and average male volunteers, Task Force data and findings disproved the hypothesis.

A Summary of voluminous empirical data showed:

• All-male task force teams outperformed their mixed-gender counterparts in 69 percent (93 of 134) of ground combat tasks.  Physical differences were more pronounced in “specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition.”

• In gender-mixed units, physical deficiencies had negative effects on the unit’s speed and effectiveness in simulated battle tasks, including marching under heavy loads, casualty evacuation, and marksmanship while fatigued.

• Significant differences were noted in the mixed-gender units’ ability to negotiate obstacles and evacuate casualties, and musculoskeletal injury rates were double – 40.5% for females, compared to 18.8% for men.

In a September 17, 2015, Memorandum titled USMC Assessment of Women in Service Assignments, Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford opened some new positions for women, but exercised his option to request that some direct ground combat (DGC) positions (likely the infantry and Special Forces) remain all male.  The Navy Department still refuses to disclose Dunford’s rationale for making that request.

Ignoring and Hiding Evidence, Obama Administration Orders “Equity”

Then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, who assigned higher priority to “equity” than to military effectiveness, disregarded Gen. Dunford’s request for exceptions and opened to women all direct ground combat (DGC) MOSs and units, including the infantry and Special Forces.

Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) Confirms Inequality, not Equality

Defense Secretary Carter and other Pentagon officials promised that gender-neutral training standards would be identical for male and female trainees for the combat arms.  Subsequent developments in the Army, however, have broken those promises and discredited the notion that groups of men and women are physically equal and interchangeable in the combat arms.

As explained in this CMR Policy Analysis, when then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley announced a new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) in 2018, to replace the long-standing Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), women were expected to perform on the tougher six-event ACFT without any gender-normed (different) training standards, requirements, or scoring systems.

The experiment started to fall apart in 2019, when 84% of the female soldiers failed to pass the ACFT.  In response to congressional pressure, the Army adjusted requirements in ACFT 2.0 and 3.0, but women continued to fail at significantly higher rates.

Congress engaged RAND to conduct an independent study of the increasingly controversial ACFT, and the results were dismal.

• Only 52% of active-duty enlisted women, compared to 92% of the men, were able to pass the ACFT.  Among officers, women’s pass rates were higher – 72% compared to 96% of male officers.  In 2022, the Army announced ACFT 4.0, which reneged on previous promises to implement gender-neutral standards.

• The RAND Report cautioned that gender-norming the ACFT would “ensure parity in pass rates between groups, but it would also require the Army to accept differences in potential combat readiness among soldiers who are held to different testing standards.”

The Army accepted that tradeoff to avoid disproportionate failure and injury rates for female trainees.  But where does this end?  If the “experts” could not deliver gender-neutral standards on a preliminary combat fitness test, why should anyone believe that officials pursuing “diversity” will maintain gender-neutral standards in advanced training for the combat arms?

Where We Stand on “Women in Combat” Policies and What Can Be Done

No one questions the courage of women serving in harm’s way, but the Army’s inability to maintain identical standards and scoring systems in combat fitness training contradicts unsupported theories about gender equality in the combat arms.

At a 2022 hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) confronted Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth on problems with the ACFT, different or lowered standards in the combat arms would “Get people killed.”

Together with Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL), Sen. Cotton has tried several times to get legislation passed to fix the problem, but their proposals were watered down or defeated in Committee.  The Army has gone back to gender-normed standards in the ACFT that use different scoring systems for men and women, or qualifying requirements that are “equal” but less demanding than before.

In addition to dropping DEI mandates, Congress should approve legislation to ensure gender-neutral (identical) standards, requirements, and scores training for combat arms (infantry) units.

One thing Congress should not do is to vote for registration of women with Selective Service on the same basis as men, setting the stage to “Draft Our Daughters” in a future war.

Women have always stepped up to volunteer in times of national emergency; it is an affront to suggest that they would not do the same in the future.  Fortunately, negotiators wisely dropped “Draft Our Daughters” in the NDAA for 2025.  Congress should not bring it up again.

On Executive Orders: The administration could do several things to improve policies affecting women – none of them calling for women to be removed from the armed forces.  For example:

• The Secretary of Defense should obtain and make public all relevant documents in full, starting with Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford’s September 17, 2015, Memorandum, plus any and all Long-term Assessments that were promised when rules affecting women changed.

• DoD officials should end pressures to achieve percentage-based quotas or a “critical mass” of women in the military and in combat arms units such as the infantry.  (Gender-normed standards that allow for physical differences are acceptable in basic, entry-level, and pre-commissioning training for units that do not seek out and attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action.)

• The Administration should defund and discontinue DoD advisory committees that keep demanding percentage-based quotas.

Conclusion

The incoming Trump administration and 119^th Congress have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore sound policies in the military.  Mandates that do not serve the interests of the military, such as purchasing fleets of expensive electric vehicles (EVs) to fight “climate change,” should be canceled.  Healthy personnel who were discharged for refusing to accept COVID-19 shots should be made whole.

Civilian control is an essential concept, and the armed forces are resilient and duty-bound to follow new orders.  Dismantling the Pentagon’s DEI infrastructure won’t be easy, but there was a time when the Berlin Wall appeared impregnable too.  Leadership and focused political pressure could cause the Diversity Industrial Complex to crack and fall down sooner than anyone thinks.

* * * * * *

 The Center for Military Readiness, founded by President Elaine Donnelly in 1993, is an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues.  This CMR Special Report, updated to include references to current NDAA negotiations, has been prepared for educational purposes and it reflects the opinions of CMR alone.  It does not represent the views of any government official, political candidate, elected lawmaker, or any other organization, and it is not intended to endorse or oppose specific legislation.  More information is available on CMR’s website, www.cmrlink.org, or can be obtained at [email protected]. Tax-deductible contributions to CMR can be made by clicking here.

First published on Center for Military Readiness