The Order Was To Purge DEI, Not History

By Major Chase Spears, PhD, US Army, ret
Served as an Army PAO

Several times recently I started to write a warning to the Pentagon’s new leadership that its biggest foe in communicating their message is the leftwing culture shared by a predominance of military communicators, known as the public affairs force.

I didn’t finish until now because few among the Department of Defense care about public affairs, and the civilian world cares even less.

Yet recent events demonstrate a continuing reality that one of the biggest obstacles facing the Pentagon’s new leadership in executing its mission is the entrenched left-wing culture of the military’s public affairs force.

By law, military public affairs (PA) personnel are tasked with keeping the institution honest with the public. Yet many among them are ideological activists intent on undermining efforts to restore the military’s focus on readiness and warfighting and acting as a resistance force against efforts to cleanse military culture of divisive, progressive social dogmas.

Last week, the Department of Defense reinstated multiple historical websites and social media posts featuring the Tuskegee Airmen, the Enola Gay, the WWII Navajo Code Talkers, the Women Airforce Service Pilots, Jackie Robinson, and the Marines at Iwo Jima, among others.

These were not removed due to an official directive or innocent mistake, but rather as an act of internal sabotage—an attempt by military agents to paint the new administration as historically illiterate and regressive.

The actual order was to eliminate content promoting Marxist DEI ideologies that divide the military, not to erase American history.

Top commanders enabled and encouraged the military’s leftwing ideological transformation in recent years, but it was military public affairs that amplified and normalized these changes to the troops and the public.

Every social media post praising DEI, every military unit marching in pride parades, and every speech framing intersectional diversity as the military’s “greatest strength” was the product of public affairs staff work.

Military Public Affairs Officers (PAOs) who promoted such divisive narratives and supported deceptive messaging on distancing, masking, and forced experimental injections cannot simply hide behind the quip of “just following orders.” Accountability is necessary.

While there are dedicated, constitutionally minded patriots within the public affairs ranks, most of them are silenced by a dominant progressive culture. The bias within military PA mirrors that of the broader public relations industry, where left-leaning perspectives are the norm.

Consider that two days after President Trump’s inauguration, the acting Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs issued a moratorium on all social media posts, except those related to border security operations.

Yet, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Public Affairs (OCPA) failed to communicate this guidance, leaving PAOs to learn about the directive from the new administration primarily through media reports. This echoed the we don’t execute policy based on a tweet mindset that defined much of the Pentagon’s resistance during President Trump’s first term.

Months earlier, in August of 2024, OCPA condemned President Trump for attending a wreath-laying on the third anniversary of the Abbey Gate attack that killed 13 Americans during the chaotic U.S. withdraw from Afghanistan, an event to which he was invited by Gold Star families.

The Army falsely claimed that Trump engaged in prohibited “political activities” and insinuated a physical altercation between Trump campaign officials and cemetery staff—claims that were based on nothing more than a shoulder brush between lower-level staffers according to a Pentagon source I spoke with.

Such actions directly violated the Army’s public affairs ethical code, which mandates that PAOs remain truthful at all times. Brig. Gen. Amanda Azubuike, whose office presided over this disinformation scheme, remains in charge of Army public affairs, while her deputy at the time, Mike Brady, has since become the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Army’s antipathy toward the incoming Trump administration continued when President Trump nominated Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense.

Following the announcement, ProPublica questioned whether Hegseth had been offered admission to West Point. The Public Affairs Division Chief at the academy, Theresa Brinkerhoff, denied that Hegseth had ever applied, stating that he “never opened a file.”

This false claim would have fueled a major media slander campaign had Hegseth not produced his 1999 West Point acceptance letter. Only after being confronted with concrete evidence did the academy acknowledge the truth.

The progressive lean within public affairs was a hallmark at the Army’s top levels in our time.

Master Sgt. Will Reinier served as the public affairs advisor to former Sgt. Maj. of the Army Michael Grinston from 2020 to 2023. He and Grinston used their accounts and stature to elevate progressive voices within the force while suppressing conservative perspectives.

Their styles sought out soldiers with left-wing grievances, encouraging them to “go on” complaining about their perceived oppression. Meanwhile, these men targeted service members who expressed concerns over COVID shot mandates and openly woke signaling by senior military officials, creating an environment where conservative viewpoints were stifled.

Reinier now works in the 82nd Airborne Division Public Affairs Office.

Another figure, Mike Lavigne, the Army’s former public affairs regimental sergeant major, was notorious for pushing anti-Trump rhetoric and bullying conservatives. Only after his antics were finally documented in a news report was any action taken.

There are many more similar examples of anti-conservative expressions I personally witnessed among members of the Army’s public affairs field. Yet only conservatives are made to fear being labeled with the epithet of “political” when speaking up.

At the Army’s Combined Arms Center, I once walked in on a PA supervisor openly ridiculing the Western Journal because it’s a conservative publication. This sentiment of illegitimacy toward any news organization to the right of CNN is shared among many military public affairs practitioners.

Meanwhile, the commanding general [then Lt. Gen. James Rainey] prioritized hiring individuals with progressive social media personas, such as a junior PAO who managed the now deleted @ladylovestaft Twitter account that specialized in obscene content.

Others, such as acting Special Operations Command Europe communications director Nichole Kirschmann, have enjoyed protection for years while openly promoting narratives that are contemptible toward people of traditional worldview. There were many others like them who have faded from public view recently.

Yet even now there remains open talk of resistance to the administration in public affairs groups on Facebook, these expressions likely being merely the tip of an iceberg.

This band of resisters include uniformed and civilian military employees all the way up to the communication staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

In light of the story this week about the inclusion of writer for The Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg in a national security chat on Signal, I interacted with military communicators who took Goldberg’s initial claims at face value, and believed that Secretary Hegseth and other Trump Administration officials were the dishonest ones in that story—in which the claims of leaking classified information have since been disproven.

Such ways of thinking demonstrate either ineptitude that is disqualifying to work as wise brokers in today’s information environment, or outright animus toward Republicans in the chain of command.

To correct course, the Pentagon’s new leadership must take decisive action to reform military public affairs. This includes removing entrenched PA agents who have demonstrated a pattern of progressive ideological bias and misconduct.

Second, Hegseth and Parnell should demand that military public affairs reflects a value of communication professionalism, rather than staffing to enable a progressive echo chamber.

Third, military leaders must consistently enforce existing regulations that require truthfulness, rather than continuing to reward wayward PAOs with key jobs.

Finally, sober-minded PAOs must spine up, and begin pushing back against weaponized uses of military communication initiatives. This is their fight as much as anyone else’s. Supervisors should no longer feel free to suppress constitutionally minded troops, as is happening right now.

Much more will need to be done, but these steps will start the necessary momentum to weed out the amateur mindset that infects much of military public affairs culture.

The previous Pentagon leadership leveraged public affairs to advance leftwing ideology on a global scale. The new administration must reshape it to reinforce the military’s core mission of national defense.

There are many in the public affairs ranks who hold a committed love of Constitutionality. But their dedication will matter little if the activist current remains unchallenged and freed to undermine efforts to restore the military’s institutional integrity.

Secretary Hegseth and Assistant Secretary Parnell must recognize, and act on the reality, that reforming public affairs is not a secondary concern—it is essential to stabilizing and reforming the armed forces back toward true fidelity to the oath of American defense.

__
Chase Spears served as a U.S. Army public affairs officer for 20 years and is host of the Finding Your Spine podcast. Among other pursuits, he enjoys writing about courage, civil-military relations, communication ethics, and policy. Chase holds a Ph.D. in leadership communication from Kansas State University, where his research focused on the political realities of military norms and actions. You can connect with his work at chasespears.com.

First published on Real Clear Defense

---

The question answers itself. This is clearly an officer intent on service to self-aggrandizing desire rather than loyal, morally-righteous service to the nation.

Unfortunately, I know of many Public Affairs Officers who view the President as a usurper rather than the commander…

— Chase Spears (@DrChaseSpears) April 3, 2025