Military policies related to transgender service members, abortion and diversity could all be on the chopping block if Republicans take control of Congress and the White House in next month's election.

Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail have spent nearly four years decrying those policies as "woke" indoctrination in the military by the Biden administration and Democrats.

Now, as the presidential and congressional campaigns enter their final stretch before Nov. 5, GOP vows to undo wokeness are growing louder, drawing attention to what the election will mean for military personnel policies.

Read Next: Air Force Reverses Course, Strikes Deal with EPA to Clean Up PFAS-Tainted Water in Arizona^[1]

"WE WILL NOT HAVE A WOKE MILITARY!" Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump posted on social media earlier this month alongside a video that glorified^[2] the abusive drill sergeant from the movie "Full Metal Jacket," which is widely recognized as a critique on the dehumanizing nature of the military, and derided current LGBTQ+ service members.

Complaints about wokeness have also been a common refrain from Republican candidates for the House and Senate.

"When the Biden administration prioritizes social agendas in our military, it demonstrates to all our enemies that military readiness is no longer a priority to the USA. Woke campaign talking points have no business in our armed services," Sam Brown, the Republican nominee for Senate in Nevada and an Army^[3] veteran, posted on social media in June in response to a Fox News article about the Pentagon's annual Pride Month ceremony.

Woke has become a malleable term for whatever policies Republicans disagree with, but with respect to the military, they most often apply it to policies meant to make the armed forces^[4] more welcoming to historically marginalized groups such as minorities, women and LGBTQ+ people.

The GOP platform for this election cycle, which Trump has taken credit for writing and which is posted on his campaign website as his main policy blueprint, has few specific plans for military personnel policies should the party win, beyond pledging to "get woke Leftwing Democrats fired" ^[5]from the military "as soon as possible."

But clues about what policies Republicans would target can be gleaned from their legislative efforts in recent years, policy maps for the next GOP administration that have been produced by conservative think tanks, and rhetoric on the campaign trail.

For example, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who is in a closer-than-expected race for reelection against Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, recently knocked his challenger for opposing anti-LGBTQ+ measures in the House-passed version of this year's annual defense policy bill.

"Just two weeks ago, Congressman Allred joined 100 radical Democrats in demanding that our military allow drag shows on military bases, pay for soldiers to have sex changes using taxpayer money, and pay for children to be sterilized and have sex changes on military bases," Cruz said at a debate against Allred, referring to Allred co-signing a letter from 162 House Democrats^[6] calling for anti-LGBTQ+ provisions to be removed from the defense bill during House-Senate negotiations on a compromise.

Tim Sheehy, a Navy SEAL^[7] veteran and the GOP Senate nominee in Montana who is on track to beat incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., released an ad early in the campaign cycle saying he was running to "get this woke crap out of our military." The ad specifically cited drag shows on military bases, which, by the time the ad was released in August 2023, the Pentagon had already banned after pressure^[8] from congressional Republicans.

Since Republicans took control of the House after the 2022 congressional elections, they have loaded early drafts of the annual defense policy and spending bills with provisions that would ban gender-affirming health care for transgender troops and transgender dependents, repeal the nearly two-year-old Pentagon policy covering travel and leave for service members seeking abortions, and eliminate all offices and jobs focused on promoting diversity.

With Democrats in control of the Senate and White House, those provisions have not had enough support to become law.

That could change if Republicans win big in November -- a prospect conservatives are counting on and liberals are dreading in equal measure.

"Ending DEI policies would be the first step toward reclaiming the military's integrity as an institution," Will Thibeau, director of the American Military Project at the conservative Claremont Institute who wrote a report earlier this year calling for an end to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies in the military, said in an email to Military.com. "The military must exist apart from the politics and ideologies of the civil society it is sworn to protect. The military, as it exists now, is not suited to compete in modern war, so our time is running out."

On the other side, Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the left-leaning Vet Voice Foundation, said the organization is "deeply concerned" about Republicans rolling back policies on reproductive care and LGBTQ+ rights in the military should they win.

"I personally know at least one individual, a trans man, who was in the pipeline to serve, who, during that time, stepped out of the process," Goldbeck said of when Trump banned transgender military service in his first term. "Just felt unsafe serving with a commander in chief who had so vehemently declared that his service would not be welcome. And so this has a real downstream impact. And it's hard for me to see, especially for young women, how they would feel safe and comfortable with a commander in chief who doesn't believe in reproductive health care."

The presidential election is considered a toss-up in most polls and election prediction models, as is which party will win control of the House. Republicans are favored to win control of the Senate.

The abortion travel policy Republicans want to repeal was implemented by the Biden administration after the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 to allow states to ban the procedure. Since the military is legally barred from providing abortions in most cases and many major military bases are in states that have now banned or severely restricted abortion, Pentagon officials were concerned about the ruling's effect on retaining and recruiting^[9] female service members.

The policy does not cover the procedure, but allows service members to take administrative leave and be reimbursed for travel costs. It also is broader than just abortion, allowing service members to travel for other reproductive care not covered by the Pentagon, such as fertility treatments.

Limited data released by the Pentagon earlier this year showed few service members had used the policy^[10] and that costs to taxpayers were low. But Republicans have still been focused on repealing it, arguing that no taxpayers dollars should fund anything related to abortion.

Meanwhile, transgender service members have been on a roller-coaster ride since 2016. That year, then-President Barack Obama ended a ban on transgender troops serving openly.

A year later, Trump announced on social media that he was reimposing the ban on transgender service members. After some court battles, Trump's ban was implemented in 2019.

Then, days after taking office in 2021, President Joe Biden reversed Trump's ban, allowing transgender troops to serve openly once more. Republicans have introduced some legislation to bar open transgender military service yet again, but the provisions that have made it into drafts of large defense bills have more narrowly focused on restricting their health care.

On diversity, GOP targets have been more ill-defined, with Republicans leveling generalized accusations that the military has become too focused on diversity, equity and inclusion at the expense of training for war. Most diversity training in the military predates the Biden administration by decades and amounts to cursory efforts to abide by equal employment opportunity law.

The specific proposals Republicans have included in defense bills focus on shuttering any offices within the Pentagon and military branches devoted to diversity, equity and inclusion and firing the personnel who work in the offices. They have also sought to ban any training based on "critical race theory," which is an academic framework largely confined to graduate school classes that examines the intersection of law and racism.

Ending policies that allow transgender troops to serve in the military, facilitate access to abortions and promote the "Marxist indoctrination" of diversity is all called for in Project 2025, the blueprint for the next GOP president that was organized by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Trump has sought to disavow Project 2025, but it was written by people with close ties to him. The chapter on military policies was written by Chris Miller, who served as acting defense secretary in the final weeks of the Trump administration.

A separate, less-known blueprint for a GOP administration, called the America First Agenda, similarly alleges the Biden administration has "imposed 'woke' policies that have diverted focus from top threats while dividing and deterring America's service members" and calls for "eliminating divisive policies."

The agenda from the America First Policy Institute, which The New York Times reported this week^[11] is poised to be more influential for a potential second Trump administration than Project 2025, is less specific on which Pentagon policies to end, though it does call for rewriting the department's definition of extremism.

Thibeau, from the Claremont Institute, voiced some concern that pledges to end diversity programs will not be fulfilled since "there is often a veneer of action and policy proposals without real change."

Still, he said he is "hopeful" about Republicans successfully rolling back social policies in the military because "that is politically beneficial for Republicans, and the Trump campaign has consistently applied pressure on the issue throughout the campaign."

Related: Smaller But More Diverse Group of Veterans Running for Congress This Year^[12]

Army^[1] Secretary Christine Wormuth's tenure may be approaching its end, and she is preparing to pass the baton -- and raft of important issues for the service's future -- to her successor.

Chief among those issues for her are more stability and predictability in the lives of soldiers, more mobility in their careers and flexibility for spouses^[2] to build civilian careers, Wormuth told Military.com in a recent interview.

"We have to start looking seriously at the question about how we operate as an Army, what kind of lifestyle we offer," she said. "The things that young people want are demonstrably different from what the people at the age of our generals and command sergeants major experienced."

Read Next: Expanded Tricare Coverage for IVF Should Be in Compromise Defense Bill, Lawmakers Urge^[3]

Wormuth, who previously served as the Pentagon's under secretary of defense for policy and made history as the first female Army secretary, was nominated by President Joe Biden and assumed her post in May 2021.

For now, it's unclear how much longer she'll be in the role. Her days are likely numbered if former President Donald Trump, a Republican, wins the election. On the other hand, if Vice President Kamala Harris clinches the presidency, Wormuth could stay on, take on a new role in the administration or leave public service altogether.

When looking to the future -- and potentially a new Army civilian leader -- Wormuth said she believes the service's approach to recruiting^[4] needs a fundamental shift away from its old sledgehammer tactics. She envisions a more strategic, nuanced method -- one that positions the Army as a competitive employer, akin to a dynamic tech company actively seeking top talent.

Instead of casting a wide net with generic appeals, Wormuth wants the Army to hone in on specific skill sets, tailoring its outreach efforts to attract a diverse pool of qualified candidates. The service has made some moves toward that mode of thinking, but it will likely take years for it to see the fruits of that labor.

Part of that, Wormuth noted, is that the Army's next wave of leadership needs to look at whether instead of moving to a new duty station every 2-3 years, that model can be shifted to five years.

"It obviously depends on what happens with the election, to see whether I personally will be able to continue to take that forward and work on real solutions," she said. "But if I have a successor, that person and the [chief of staff of the Army] need to be thinking about this."

Part of the rationale for not moving troops around so much is allowing their spouses to more easily build careers. In a report published earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office found that only half of military spouses are employed^[5], a third of whom are part-time workers.

The report highlighted the difficulties military spouses face in maintaining consistent employment, largely due to the constant upheaval caused by relocations and the unpredictable schedules of service members. Many spouses often find themselves functioning as single parents, juggling grocery shopping, school drop-offs and managing the household alone while their partners are away on duty or dealing with irregular hours.

In a recent address to the force, Wormuth noted that the service leans far too heavily on "spouses and partners as a de-facto unpaid Army labor force," and that internal service data shows most officers leave the service for more stability and a better family life in the private sector.

"Spouse employment doesn't improve very much year over year," Wormuth said. "Despite various programs we have, fundamentally, if you're moving every 2-3 years, it's hard to have a job, much less build a career."

Meanwhile, the Army is juggling a wide array of missions, from combat operations in the Middle East and Africa to expanding its influence in the Pacific and reinforcing NATO's frontlines in Europe. Most recently, the service deployed 100 soldiers to Israel to bolster air defenses amid growing regional tensions.

Those high demands are taking a heavy toll on the force. Soldiers today are spending more time away from home than they did even during the height of the post-9/11 wars. The constant deployment^[6]s, intensive training cycles and prolonged separations from their families have created a relentless pressure-cooker environment for many service members, which has also been exacerbating a suicide crisis in the ranks.

Countering that is difficult, Wormuth explained, as the Army ultimately must meet the needs of the current administration's national security strategy. But there are ways to alleviate pressure on the margins, including combatant commanders properly measuring how many troops they need for a given mission. Another solution could be expanding the Army's permanent presence in Poland, which is now only a tiny garrison.

"We wouldn't be having to move brigades back and forth year after year to do rotation deployments," she said, noting there are also the realities of the up-front cost of building a major base. "Poland has been eager to host for some time now, ... but it's also a question of where would a brigade come from?"

During her tenure, Wormuth has overseen the Army's shift away from two decades of counterinsurgency operations, and its new focus on preparing the force for potential large-scale conflicts -- chief among them China in the Indo-Pacific region. At the same time, the Army has been key in ramping up munitions production to supply Ukraine as it defends against an invasion by Russia.

But Wormuth has also turned her attention inward, making quality-of-life issues for soldiers and their families a North Star of her tenure.

Two key accomplishments were nearly doubling the budget for barracks construction and maintenance to $2 billion; shifting funds from the Army's relatively flat budget to pay for replacing the service's sometimes dilapidated living quarters; and policy saying that only a general can deny a soldier's parental leave -- a radical change to the Army status quo.

Wormuth's name is commonly floated around as a candidate for defense secretary in a Harris administration. It's incredibly rare for Army secretaries to stay on and not be replaced under new administrations, even among the same political parties. Potential picks for her successor in a possible Harris administration are already being vetted, according to one Democratic source with direct knowledge of the situation.

Wormuth has so far brought a rare continuity to the role, serving the second-longest term since the Sept. 11 attacks. Her tenure stands in stark contrast to the position's revolving door nature. The role has often been marked by transient leadership with frequent interim appointments.

John McHugh, who served from 2009 to 2015 under President Barack Obama, held the position for a notably long tenure compared to the norm, making him one of the longest-serving secretaries in recent history.

"We'll see what the American voter decides," Wormuth said. "I just hope that the American public respects whatever the American voter decides and does so without violence."

Related: How the Army's Retiring Top Enlisted Soldier Fought to Make Life Better for Troops by Being Open About Himself^[7]

Army^[1] Secretary Christine Wormuth's tenure may be approaching its end, and she is preparing to pass the baton -- and raft of important issues for the service's future -- to her successor.

Chief among those issues for her are more stability and predictability in the lives of soldiers, more mobility in their careers and flexibility for spouses^[2] to build civilian careers, Wormuth told Military.com in a recent interview.

"We have to start looking seriously at the question about how we operate as an Army, what kind of lifestyle we offer," she said. "The things that young people want are demonstrably different from what the people at the age of our generals and command sergeants major experienced."

Read Next: Expanded Tricare Coverage for IVF Should Be in Compromise Defense Bill, Lawmakers Urge^[3]

Wormuth, who previously served as the Pentagon's under secretary of defense for policy and made history as the first female Army secretary, was nominated by President Joe Biden and assumed her post in May 2021.

For now, it's unclear how much longer she'll be in the role. Her days are likely numbered if former President Donald Trump, a Republican, wins the election. On the other hand, if Vice President Kamala Harris clinches the presidency, Wormuth could stay on, take on a new role in the administration or leave public service altogether.

When looking to the future -- and potentially a new Army civilian leader -- Wormuth said she believes the service's approach to recruiting^[4] needs a fundamental shift away from its old sledgehammer tactics. She envisions a more strategic, nuanced method -- one that positions the Army as a competitive employer, akin to a dynamic tech company actively seeking top talent.

Instead of casting a wide net with generic appeals, Wormuth wants the Army to hone in on specific skill sets, tailoring its outreach efforts to attract a diverse pool of qualified candidates. The service has made some moves toward that mode of thinking, but it will likely take years for it to see the fruits of that labor.

Part of that, Wormuth noted, is that the Army's next wave of leadership needs to look at whether instead of moving to a new duty station every 2-3 years, that model can be shifted to five years.

"It obviously depends on what happens with the election, to see whether I personally will be able to continue to take that forward and work on real solutions," she said. "But if I have a successor, that person and the [chief of staff of the Army] need to be thinking about this."

Part of the rationale for not moving troops around so much is allowing their spouses to more easily build careers. In a report published earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office found that only half of military spouses are employed^[5], a third of whom are part-time workers.

The report highlighted the difficulties military spouses face in maintaining consistent employment, largely due to the constant upheaval caused by relocations and the unpredictable schedules of service members. Many spouses often find themselves functioning as single parents, juggling grocery shopping, school drop-offs and managing the household alone while their partners are away on duty or dealing with irregular hours.

In a recent address to the force, Wormuth noted that the service leans far too heavily on "spouses and partners as a de-facto unpaid Army labor force," and that internal service data shows most officers leave the service for more stability and a better family life in the private sector.

"Spouse employment doesn't improve very much year over year," Wormuth said. "Despite various programs we have, fundamentally, if you're moving every 2-3 years, it's hard to have a job, much less build a career."

Meanwhile, the Army is juggling a wide array of missions, from combat operations in the Middle East and Africa to expanding its influence in the Pacific and reinforcing NATO's frontlines in Europe. Most recently, the service deployed 100 soldiers to Israel to bolster air defenses amid growing regional tensions.

Those high demands are taking a heavy toll on the force. Soldiers today are spending more time away from home than they did even during the height of the post-9/11 wars. The constant deployment^[6]s, intensive training cycles and prolonged separations from their families have created a relentless pressure-cooker environment for many service members, which has also been exacerbating a suicide crisis in the ranks.

Countering that is difficult, Wormuth explained, as the Army ultimately must meet the needs of the current administration's national security strategy. But there are ways to alleviate pressure on the margins, including combatant commanders properly measuring how many troops they need for a given mission. Another solution could be expanding the Army's permanent presence in Poland, which is now only a tiny garrison.

"We wouldn't be having to move brigades back and forth year after year to do rotation deployments," she said, noting there are also the realities of the up-front cost of building a major base. "Poland has been eager to host for some time now, ... but it's also a question of where would a brigade come from?"

During her tenure, Wormuth has overseen the Army's shift away from two decades of counterinsurgency operations, and its new focus on preparing the force for potential large-scale conflicts -- chief among them China in the Indo-Pacific region. At the same time, the Army has been key in ramping up munitions production to supply Ukraine as it defends against an invasion by Russia.

But Wormuth has also turned her attention inward, making quality-of-life issues for soldiers and their families a North Star of her tenure.

Two key accomplishments were nearly doubling the budget for barracks construction and maintenance to $2 billion; shifting funds from the Army's relatively flat budget to pay for replacing the service's sometimes dilapidated living quarters; and policy saying that only a general can deny a soldier's parental leave -- a radical change to the Army status quo.

Wormuth's name is commonly floated around as a candidate for defense secretary in a Harris administration. It's incredibly rare for Army secretaries to stay on and not be replaced under new administrations, even among the same political parties. Potential picks for her successor in a possible Harris administration are already being vetted, according to one Democratic source with direct knowledge of the situation.

Wormuth has so far brought a rare continuity to the role, serving the second-longest term since the Sept. 11 attacks. Her tenure stands in stark contrast to the position's revolving door nature. The role has often been marked by transient leadership with frequent interim appointments.

John McHugh, who served from 2009 to 2015 under President Barack Obama, held the position for a notably long tenure compared to the norm, making him one of the longest-serving secretaries in recent history.

"We'll see what the American voter decides," Wormuth said. "I just hope that the American public respects whatever the American voter decides and does so without violence."

Related: How the Army's Retiring Top Enlisted Soldier Fought to Make Life Better for Troops by Being Open About Himself^[7]