Religious Freedom Under Fire Magazine Position Paper
1.0 Introduction: Upholding a Foundational American Liberty Within the Ranks
The religious liberty of American service members is not a peripheral issue or a matter of special privilege; it is a core component of troop morale, a critical factor in military readiness, and an essential element of our national security. The men and women of our Armed Forces volunteer to defend the U.S. Constitution, yet a series of recent policies and administrative actions have created a climate of uncertainty that threatens their own First Amendment rights. This paper will analyze how these actions have infringed upon the religious freedoms of military personnel and advocate for specific, actionable policy changes to restore and protect this fundamental liberty. When service members are forced to choose between their sincerely held religious beliefs and their military careers, it represents a profound failure of leadership. As Rep. Grace Meng has powerfully stated, it is a “moral failing if those who voluntarily put their lives on the line for our country are deprived of the very rights they signed up to fight for.” Therefore, strengthening religious accommodation protections is a strategic imperative essential to maintaining an effective all-volunteer force and upholding the nation’s core values.
2.0 The Bedrock of Belief: The Evolving Legal and Policy Framework for Religious Expression
To understand the gravity of current threats to religious freedom in the military, one must first appreciate the legal and historical context that governs it. This framework has evolved significantly over the past several decades, shifting from a posture of grudging tolerance to an affirmative recognition of religious practice as a protected and celebrated liberty. This progression reflects a deeper understanding that faith can be a source of strength and resilience for those in uniform, rather than an impediment to good order and discipline.
The modern legal journey began with the Supreme Court’s restrictive 1986 ruling in Goldman v. Weinberger. In that seminal case, the Court deferred to military judgment and upheld an Air Force regulation that prevented an Orthodox Jewish officer—a rabbi and clinical psychologist—from wearing his yarmulke indoors. This decision forced a dedicated officer to choose between his faith and his career, prioritizing rigid uniformity over individual liberty.
In direct response to the Goldman decision, Congress intervened. The 1988 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision that explicitly permitted service members to wear modest religious apparel as part of their uniform, directly repudiating the Court’s deference and establishing a clear legislative intent to protect religious observance. This was the first major step in reversing the damaging precedent of the Goldman case.
This evolution culminated in the September 1, 2020, issuance of Department of Defense Instruction 1300.17, “Religious Liberty in the Military Services.” The very change in title from its 2009 predecessor, “Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services,” signals a monumental shift in perspective. The policy moved beyond viewing religious practice as a burdensome “accommodation” to be granted reluctantly, and instead framed it as a “liberty” to be proactively protected and celebrated.
DoD Instruction 1300.17 established a robust framework for safeguarding this liberty, grounded in the following core principles:
- A bias in favor of approval: The instruction directs commanders to approve requests for religious accommodation unless there is a compelling, demonstrable reason not to.
- Narrowly defined exceptions: Denials are permitted only when an accommodation would adversely affect military readiness, mission accomplishment, unit cohesion, or good order and discipline. Exceptions must be based on military necessity, law, or safety.
- Expedited and localized decision-making: The policy mandates that decisions be made quickly and at the lowest possible level of command, preventing bureaucratic delays from hindering a service member’s free exercise of religion.
Despite this clear and positive policy framework, recent proposals represent a significant regression. The proposed grooming standards are a dangerous modern echo of the Goldman case, threatening to undo over three decades of corrective progress and undermine these established liberties.
3.0 An Escalation of Threats: Current Challenges to Religious Accommodation
Despite the clear mandate of DoD Instruction 1300.17, a series of recent executive actions and administrative decisions have created a climate of uncertainty and actively undermined the religious freedom of service members. These actions, ranging from broad mandates to targeted programmatic cuts, have forced thousands of dedicated personnel to compromise their convictions or sacrifice their careers. The following case studies illustrate the scope and severity of these new threats.
3.1 Case Study: The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate and its Aftermath
On August 24, 2021, the Department of Defense implemented a mandate requiring COVID-19 vaccination for all service members. While the policy allowed for Religious Accommodation Requests (RARs), the implementation was overwhelmingly restrictive. Out of approximately 28,000 RARs submitted across all branches, fewer than 400—less than 2%—were approved.
This near-categorical denial had devastating career consequences for thousands of personnel who refused the vaccine on religious grounds. Testimonies from the fourth hearing of the Religious Liberty Commission paint a stark picture of the human cost:
- Blake Martin, a U.S. Navy SEAL with seventeen years of honorable service, was forced to separate from the military without benefits or recognition for his years of service, just on the brink of reaching full retirement, for adhering to his religious convictions.
- Mike Berry, a decorated Marine veteran, was placed on inactive status without his knowledge after refusing the vaccine. He only discovered his status change when his family was denied access to their TRICARE health insurance.
The systemic nature of these denials led to a class-action lawsuit, U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden. The resulting settlement agreement required the Navy to review and correct the personnel files of all class members, expunge adverse information related to the mandate, and—critically—protect class members from discrimination on promotion boards for the next three years. Recognizing the widespread injustice, Senator Ted Cruz introduced the Reaffirming Every Servicemember’s Trust Over Religious Exemptions (RESTORE) Act to provide a legislative remedy for those who were unjustly penalized for their faith.
3.2 Case Study: Proposed Restrictions on Religious Grooming and Expression
A new and direct threat to religious expression has emerged from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s proposed changes to military grooming and uniform standards. In a recent address, Secretary Hegseth declared that “the era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done” and that there would be “no more beards, long hair, [or] superficial individual expression.”
This proposed policy would reverse over a decade of progress and directly impact personnel from a wide array of faiths, including Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Rastafarian service members, for whom beards or other articles of faith are sincerely held religious tenets. Such a policy would force thousands of dedicated and capable troops to choose between their faith and their service to the nation.
In response, Reps. Grace Meng and Ted Lieu led a bipartisan group of lawmakers in a joint letter condemning the proposal. They urged Secretary Hegseth to pause the 60-day implementation plan, highlighting the fact that thousands of service members have proven that they can honor their religious beliefs while serving with distinction.
3.3 Case Study: The Systemic Undermining of the Chaplaincy Corps
In a move that strikes at the heart of military spiritual support systems, the U.S. Army announced in March 2025 its decision to cancel all religious support contracts for Coordinators of Religious Education (CRE), Catholic Pastoral Life Coordinators (CPLC), and musicians. This decision disproportionately harms Catholic service members, who already face a significant shortage of chaplains.
Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, provided data that illustrates the severe imbalance:
| Metric | Statistic |
| Catholics in the Army | ~20% |
| Catholic Chaplains | < 5.5% of the Chaplain Corps |
| Protestant Chaplain Ratio | ~6 per 1,000 Protestant soldiers |
| Catholic Chaplain Ratio | ~1 per 1,000 Catholic soldiers |
Archbishop Broglio argues that canceling these essential support contracts over-burdens the small number of Catholic chaplains and “impedes the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion.” The Army’s subsequent pledge to “reexamine” the decision was dismissed as “wholly inadequate” by Elizabeth Tomlin, general counsel for the military archdiocese, who noted that the government employees suggested as replacements are not required to be Catholic and lack the necessary qualifications to oversee Catholic religious education.
These individual and systemic challenges are not isolated incidents; they have a profound and measurable cost to both our personnel and our nation.
4.0 The Strategic Cost of Infringing upon Faith
Policies that restrict religious freedom are not administrative minutiae; they are self-inflicted wounds that directly degrade military readiness and undermine our national security posture. When the military forces its members to choose between their faith and their service, it not only violates a sacred trust but also inflicts a strategic wound on the institution itself.
Impact on Individual Morale and Retention
The strategic cost begins with the erosion of trust in the chain of command. When a seventeen-year Navy SEAL veteran like Blake Martin is forced out on the brink of retirement over his convictions, without benefits or recognition for his years of service, it sends a chilling message throughout the ranks. This message is amplified when long-standing sources of morale, like the 4 million inspirational dog tags provided by Shields of Strength, are abruptly banned after a single complaint. Such actions signal that deeply held faith is a liability, not a source of strength. This erodes morale, drives talented individuals out of the service, and represents a tragic loss of invaluable experience, leadership, and taxpayer investment.
Impact on Military Readiness and Recruitment
These policies are not merely a personnel issue; they are a matter of national security. As Rep. Ted Lieu rightly asserts, restricting religious accommodations “hurts military readiness.” In an all-volunteer force, the military must draw from all segments of American society. As Marine veteran Mike Berry testified before the Religious Liberty Commission, “highly religious young Americans are way more likely to join the military” than their nonreligious peers. By creating an environment perceived as hostile to faith, the DoD is actively discouraging a key recruitment demographic. Berry warned that if religious freedom is not respected, young Americans of faith will not enlist, and the military “will become soft and weak.” Alienating this patriotic and service-oriented population is a strategic blunder that directly impedes the military’s ability to recruit and retain the personnel needed to defend the nation.
The analysis of these widespread problems demands concrete solutions. It is imperative that policymakers act decisively to reverse these harmful trends.
5.0 A Call to Action: Recommendations for Restoring and Protecting Religious Liberty
Reversing these damaging trends requires decisive and coordinated action from both Congress and the Department of Defense. It is time to move beyond rhetoric and implement concrete policies that reaffirm religious liberty as a strategic priority and a non-negotiable right for every American in uniform. We urge policymakers to consider the following actionable recommendations.
- Enact Corrective Legislation. Congress must enact a legislative remedy to provide justice for the thousands of service members harmed by the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We urge the swift passage of legislation modeled on the RESTORE Act, which would establish a special review board to audit all denials of religious accommodation requests, mandate the correction of personnel records, and provide clear remedies, including backdated promotions, restoration of rank, and compensation for lost pay and retirement contributions.
- Codify Protections into Law. To prevent future erosion of rights, Congress should codify the foundational principles of DoD Instruction 1300.17 into federal law. This would establish a clear and durable statutory standard for religious accommodation—including a presumption of approval—that cannot be easily reversed or ignored by future administrative or executive policy changes. This action would provide stability and assurance to service members that their rights are protected by law, not by the shifting priorities of a given administration.
- Rescind Harmful Department of Defense Policies. The Secretary of Defense must immediately withdraw the proposed grooming standard changes that would effectively ban beards and other articles of faith essential to Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, and other religious personnel. Furthermore, the Secretary of the Army must reverse the shortsighted cancellation of religious support contracts for chapels and restore funding for these vital roles, which are essential to ensuring all service members have access to spiritual guidance and support.
- Mandate Comprehensive Religious Liberty Training. To mitigate the readiness and recruitment deficits caused by inconsistent policy application, the DoD must develop and mandate a robust, recurring training program for all commanders, chaplains, and legal personnel involved in the religious accommodation process. Testimony from decorated veterans like Mike Berry, who received only one hour of religious liberty training in his entire career, reveals a critical educational gap. This training must ensure that leaders fully understand their obligations under the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and DoD Instruction 1300.17.
Protecting the religious freedom of our service members is not a concession; it is our constitutional obligation and a strategic imperative. The brave men and women of our military volunteer to face grave dangers to protect the freedoms we enjoy at home. In the words of Kelly Shackelford, CEO of the First Liberty Institute, “These men and women are risking their very lives for our freedoms. To stand for theirs is the very least we can do.” This task force must act decisively to ensure that the defense of our nation’s liberties never comes at the expense of the liberties of those who defend us. Our honor and our security depend on it.