The Pentagon has no ready answers on how the Defense Department would put into effect pending law that would allow the military to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine without facing separation, officials said this week.
Congressional Republicans have been negotiating with the Democratic-led House and Senate to come up with language that would override the COVID-19 military mandate as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2023, according to an invoice released Tuesday night.
“Does this August 2021 policy still make sense?”House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, said Wednesday, “Is this the right policy?We don’t think that’s the case and I don’t think that’s the case. “
The new law would overturn Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s 2021 mandate that required the military to be vaccinated against COVID-19, whether it’s the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine or Johnson and Johnson’s or Novavax’s single-shot vaccines.
Section 525 of the NDAA, released Tuesday night, asks the Department of Defense for an arrest warrant for COVID-19.
“We recognize the importance of the secretary adhering to the public fitness recommendation to protect the fitness and welfare of the military workforce and their families, adding the vaccine requirement based on readiness requirements,” the invoice says.
The NDAA also includes language calling on the Department of Defense to reinstate service members who were separated due to refusal to get vaccinated against COVID-19. However, the bill does not require members who have been separated to be reinstated.
According to the mandate, those who did not comply would be separated. As of November 28, the Navy has separated 2,064 sailors, reservists and active duty for not being vaccinated against COVID-19. As of December 1, the Marine Corps separated 3,717 Marines.
The wording of the NDAA leaves it up to the facility whether they will reinstate someone separated for refusing to be vaccinated. It’s unclear how the Navy or Marine Corps will treat service members who have been separated. The Navy referred questions about reinstating sailors to the Secretary of Defense’s office.
It’s also unclear whether sailors and marines can be deployed. Currently, any sailor or military member with a pending or shown exemption from the vaccine will deploy because they do not have the vaccine, even if they are still part of the military.
Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh declined to answer about the prestige of the troop deployment if the vaccine mandate falls, saying she may simply not comment on ongoing litigation when asked by reporters Wednesday. The Pentagon legislative team is running with members of the House and Senate. to make explicit the Secretary of Defense’s desire to maintain the vaccine mandate.
“We have our legislative team that continues to work with members of Congress, members of Congress in either chamber,” Singh said. The secretary’s priorities are. [. . . ] I think the secretary is quite transparent and forceful and his reaction over the weekend when he said he supported the continuation of the vaccine mandate in the NDAA.
Also pending is the factor of sailors who have implemented for devotees exemptions for the vaccine. A federal ruling on the ruling in March put in place an initial injunction prohibiting the Navy from separating them. It is unclear how the NDAA will conduct the trial, which is expected. to be heard in February before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro spoke out against cutting the mandate at a Navy League event on Tuesday, raising concerns such as what happens to sailors who have to go to countries with strict vaccination requirements.
Congress will have to perceive the oblique consequences of its decisions, the Navy secretary said.
“But it will create only two categories of citizens in our services,” del Toro said. “Those who cannot deploy and those who can deploy. And that creates all kinds of problems.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the removal of the order a mistake at a press convention Wednesday. The president will weigh the entire NDAA, once approved, before deciding whether to flag it. the elimination of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
“What we’ve seen, what we think happened here, is that Republicans in Congress would rather fight the fitness and well-being of our troops than protect them, and we think that’s a mistake,” Jean-Pierre said. .
At a Defense Writers’ Group breakfast Wednesday, Marine Corps Cmdr. Gen. David Berger said the mandate is political, but vaccination is not. There are several vaccines that service members get because they are mandatory for army readiness. Army, while others may be required depending on the geographical domain of the service.
“Marines know that when their leaders say they have to do something because it’s vital to the war and their own health, the political component is not part of that,” Berger said.
One reason Republican leaders canceled the mandate is that the vaccine requirement hurts military recruitment and retention. Singh told reporters there were a number of other reasons, adding festivals with large corporations and eligibility issues, which led to recruitment problems in addition to the minimum. Effect of the term.
There are recruitment issues similar to the vaccine mandate, Berger said at a Reagan National Defense Forum panel Saturday. But this is basically similar to incorrect information about the vaccine that prevents other people from getting it, he said.
Mat Staver, an attorney representing a Navy Surface Warfare commander among other service members, said of the vaccine mandate that he knew service members who told their young people to serve because of the vaccine mandate.
Staver praised the NDAA’s language and called the vaccine mandate unconstitutional.
“This has caused abuses across the military of all branches of the military. It wasn’t effective,” Staver told USNI News. It has undermined morale, it has been used to punish honorable Americans who are irreplaceable. “
Those who were separated for refusing to get vaccinated will have to be reinstated, Staver said. He plans to continue lawsuits against the military for punishing his clients for not taking the vaccine.
Even if they reinstate members separated by the vaccine, it is not known what positions they will be able to fill or if they will be deployable.
The wording of the bill also does not specify whether the military would want to deal with service members who have chosen to retire or leave the service if vaccinated.