Hegseth orders review of Pentagon's complaint process
Hegseth ordered each military department to review its military Equal Opportunity (EO) and civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs, according to a memo dated Thursday and released Friday.
Titled 'Restoring Good Order and Discipline Through Balanced Accountability,' the review is meant 'to ensure prompt and impartial investigations, fair treatment of all involved, and timely and appropriate resolution of allegations of discrimination,' the memo states.
In a video posted to social media announcing the review, Hegseth said it's 'a good thing' that the DOD has equal opportunity programs for people to report discrimination and harassment. But he insisted that the programs are sometimes 'weaponized,' with some individuals using them 'in bad faith to retaliate' against superiors or peers.
'I hear it all the time. Say you receive a bad evaluation, well, file a military EO complaint. It's nonsense. We want to fix that,' Hegseth said, calling the directive his 'no more walking on eggshells' policy.
'You see too often at the Defense Department there are complaints made for certain reasons that can't be verified that end people's career, either through EO or the [Office of the Inspector General],' Hegseth added. 'We need to reform that process completely so commanders can be commanders.'
He did not include specific examples of such abuses of the complaint system, and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to questions from The Hill pertaining to details of such 'bad faith' uses of the EO process.
Each service secretary must now 'identify areas for reform, and provide plans to streamline the investigation process, timely address problematic behaviors, and mitigate undue mission impacts,' within 45 days, per Hegseth's memo.
The plans must include specific actions to allow unsubstantiated claims to be dismissed quickly.
Hegseth also wants officials to take into account the 'favorable personnel actions' of alleged offenders — meaning any promotions, awards, reenlistment, reassignment, or attendance at military or civilian schools — should it seem like a complaint against them is not likely to be substantiated.
In addition, he asked for administrative and/or disciplinary actions for personnel 'who knowingly submit false complaints.'
'Our personnel deserve fair treatment and a positive work environment free from unlawful discrimination and harassment,' Jules Hurst, the acting under secretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, said in a statement accompanying the memo. 'They also deserve qualified leaders who are empowered to make tough decisions, enforce standards, and restore good order and discipline through balanced accountability.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge extends restraining order in MIT, universities' lawsuit against DOD
A federal judge extended a temporary restraining order for two weeks in a lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD) over funding cuts related to indirect costs for military-based research, according to a Tuesday-evening order. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology joined a group of 11 other universities, including Brown University in Rhode Island, and three higher education organizations that filed a complaint against the DOD. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy initially issued the temporary restraining order on June 17. He will hear arguments from the parties on Wednesday at 11 a.m. Boston University also supported the lawsuit as a member of the Association of American Universities. The lawsuit comes after the DOD announced that it would limit facilities and administrative reimbursements to a 15% cap for all DOD research grants. Facilities and administrative costs include maintenance and administrative staff, research facilities and safety expenses, among others, which the group cites as being essential costs in maintaining the country's status as a leader in military technology research. Read more: Those on Harvard's waitlist will wait a bit longer amid international student battle MIT received $107 million in funding from the DOD in the 2024 fiscal year, according to court filings. The institution estimates that a 15% cap on facilities and administrative expenses by the DOD would result in an estimated loss of $21 million annually. MIT has expressed it intends to apply for new funding awards from the DOD in addition to pending funding proposals. MIT is also involved in lawsuits against other federal organizations over cuts to indirect costs in other departments, namely the National Institute of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Science Foundation. 'DOD's latest action would have an immediate and dire effect on our national security by disrupting research designed to help our military,' the group of those suing said in a statement released Monday. Gustavo Atencio Flores contributed to this reporting. Those on Harvard's waitlist will wait a bit longer amid international student battle Read the Trump admin letter threatening to cut all of Harvard's funding Trump admin threatens to cut all Harvard's funding over 'violent violation' Trump admin appeals federal judge's decision rejecting ban of foreign Harvard students A new Boston-area college president is named amid financial strain and a resignation Read the original article on MassLive.
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
What the US Army is flying is around 90% crewed, 10% drone. Leadership wants to flip that.
The US Army secretary and a top general told BI about the service's plans for what it flies. In the coming years, the Army wants to operate far more unmanned aircraft than manned. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants the Army to reduce its crewed attack helicopter force and replace it with drones. US Army leadership told Business Insider it wants to be flying a lot more uncrewed aircraft than crewed ones in the coming years. We are talking about a tremendous increase in the number of drones. Its ambitions, which align with goals outlined by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's recent directive, come from a vision for what Army officials and the Trump administration have described as a more lethal force ready for future warfare. In an interview with Business Insider, US Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll and Gen. James Rainey, the commanding general of Army Futures Command, said that unprecedented changes in warfare are fueling plans to overhaul what the Army flies. "We believe there's a role for some manned aircraft," Rainey explained, "Big picture-wise, right now, about 90% of the things we're flying have humans in them and 10% don't. And I believe over the next several years, we would like to invert that." The plans to give every division 1,000 drones within the next two years, he added, speak to the "aggressiveness" with which the Army is going after the new uncrewed objectives. Earlier this year, Hegseth sent out a memo on strategic transformations within the Army, laying out goals and timelines for the service, including force restructuring and cuts to certain programs and systems that altogether represent one of the largest Army revamps since the end of the Cold War. The push is estimated to cost around $36 billion over the next five years. In the memo, Hegseth indicated that crewed attack helicopter formations would be reduced, restructured, and augmented with drone swarms capable of overwhelming adversaries. War-winning Army capabilities and the ones that aren't Driscoll said this big change, along with others identified in the DoD memo, is already underway and largely focused on examining what systems no longer make sense in the context of the Army's vision for its future and what systems will replace them. He mentioned the AH-64D Apache attack helicopter as one platform that no longer aligns with plans for the transformation of the force. "The flying costs on that were $10,000 an hour," the secretary said of the older Deltas, pointing out that the figure is about twice the cost of the newer Echo variant of the aircraft. "Those are the kinds of decisions that I think we had let linger and fester for too long as an Army for all sorts of reasons," Driscoll said. "What we are trying to do is take a hard look at these things," he explained, and decide whether they align with what the warfighter needs. Last month, Lt. Gen. Joseph Ryan, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and training, said that the Deltas are no longer "a war-winning capability that we can fight with and win today." Even the more advanced Echos, he said, are "on the cusp of being capabilities where we don't necessarily see them contributing to the fight the way they have done perhaps in the past." The Army plans to shelve the Delta variant and further examine other crewed aircraft that may no longer be sufficiently effective. It is also reviewing other helicopter models and plans to reduce the number of helos operated. The future of war is robotic More broadly, uncrewed aircraft are being seen as alternatives that soldiers can send forward on the battlefield to do missions that crewed aircraft have traditionally done. There's still a place for crewed aircraft in the Army. Some helicopters, for example, still boast value for landing troops behind or around enemy positions to surprise and surround them. But future operations are expected to be a whole lot more robotic, with an Army aviation portfolio that more heavily relies on unmanned systems integrated with manned ones. The Army sees itself at a turning point. Senior defense officials appointed by President Donald Trump have called out what they see as excessive spending, outdated systems and weapons, and a need to expedite changes to be prepared to deter or fight a future conflict. It's part of efforts to maximize readiness, increase lethality, and get soldiers what they need most. Such aims aren't entirely new, though, and execution will be key. During the previous administration, for instance, the Army was already discussing the need for more uncrewed systems and changes to its aircraft fleet, especially with the cancellation of the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft program. Last year, Rainey told lawmakers that for scouting and recon missions "the right thing to do is to use unmanned systems and not put humans in harm's way." A major motivator for many of the ongoing transformation efforts is China, which the Pentagon has referred to as a pacing challenge. Officials and lawmakers in Washington see China's meteoric military growth and modernization and are pursuing capabilities that will allow the US military to deter aggression and, if necessary, overcome that rapidly evolving fighting force in armed combat. Drones, from pocket-sized aircraft to quadcopters to bigger warfighting assets, are a key part of these efforts, providing a range of combat capabilities en masse for a relatively low cost compared to some other US weapons programs. The Pentagon has been working to expedite the development and deployment of uncrewed aerial systems across the services, recognizing their value as this technology sprints onto the scene in big ways. Army soldiers have been testing different types of reconnaissance and strike drones are being tested in areas like the Indo-Pacific region, learning how to adapt unmanned systems to the challenges of different missions and environments. That's a key aspect of an ongoing "transformation in contact" initiative, which focuses on Army units being given free rein to use different capabilities during training and exercises to see how the systems might work best. The value of drones, particularly the smaller systems, has been especially visible in the war in Ukraine, which Army leaders continue to study. Ukrainian operators fly drones for intelligence-gathering and strike missions, among others. Due to extensive electronic warfare countermeasures on the battlefield, both sides are heavily relying on fiber-optic drones to maintain a stable connection between the operator and system while also exploring new technology, like AI-enabled drones that can resist jamming. The US is not in a similar situation, but it is looking to innovate as if it were.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Did Trump make us more or less safe with the strikes on Iran?
In 2004, my brother was wounded by an improvised explosive device in Iraq that was certainly built by Iran. I have no love for the Iranian regime. But after President Trump's air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, I keep asking myself: Has Trump made us more or less safe? After I left the classified briefing for members of Congress on Operation 'Midnight Hammer,' I fear more for our safety now than I did before. I won't discuss what was said in the briefing, but I wish I could say the briefing by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put my mind at ease. It did not. Instead, I left the briefing more concerned than when I walked in — about our national security, the rationale for this operation, and the long-term consequences of what may well be a strategic gamble masquerading as a military success. Over my 25 years in the U.S. Army, including time as a military legal advisor in Iraq and as deputy legal advisor at the National Security Council, I've seen how military actions are planned, authorized and evaluated. That experience has taught me to look for clarity of purpose, honest assessments of risk and a clear-eyed strategy for what comes next. Nothing that the administration has said, publicly or privately, suggests to me that they have a strategic framework for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The administration framed the most recent operation as a decisive blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions. 'Totally obliterated' the president claimed. Yet, when pressed for clear answers, officials struggle to articulate what 'success' looks like. The objectives of 'Midnight Hammer' remain frustratingly vague. Was the goal to delay Iran's nuclear breakout capability? To coerce Tehran into future negotiations? Or was this a show of force meant primarily for domestic political consumption? The administration cannot credibly claim a meaningful setback to their program without proof, and so far, that proof is missing. Further, with the president telegraphing the strikes a week in advance, the Iranians had plenty of opportunity to move the highly enriched uranium, leaving the nuclear material unaffected. Finally, and most critically: Has Iran's nuclear breakout capability been meaningfully diminished? For decades American presidents — both Democrat and Republican — have resisted the urge to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, deciding that the consequences were not worth the risks involved. Each of those administrations had reasoned that the probability of sufficiently setting back the program was insufficiently high enough to risk driving the program underground or preventing breakout. We've seen this movie before. Short-term tactical wins often lead to long-term strategic problems. The 1981 Israeli strike on Osirak, Iraq's nuclear reactor, delayed Saddam Hussein's program — but it also drove it underground. Iran's nuclear program, already shrouded in secrecy, may now retreat further from the eyes of international inspectors. That's not victory. That's a harder problem tomorrow. This is not to minimize the skill or bravery of the servicemembers who carried out the mission. They did their job magnificently. There was no other military in the world capable of doing what they did. The question is whether our civilian leadership did theirs — by asking the hard questions, setting achievable objectives and preparing for the aftermath. Congress and the American public deserve to know the rationale, the risks and the real effects of this operation. Absent that, we are left hoping that the smoke clears to reveal progress, not a deeper entanglement. We need answers — fast. Right now, hope is all we have — and that's not a strategy. Eugene Vindman represents the 7th Congressional District of Virginia in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a former U.S. Army colonel, with 25 years of service, including as a senior military legal advisor and as deputy legal advisor at the National Security Council.
