ICYMI: Secretaries of Navy, Air Force, and Army Call on Senator Tuberville to End Dangerous Military Holds

Washington Post and CNN reports highlight significant impact of senior military officials serving in acting positions due to Senator Tuberville's holds

In a new Washington Post op-ed, Secretaries of the Navy, Air Force, Space Force and Army, are calling on Senator Tommy Tuberville to end his dangerous blockade on military appointments which is threatening our national security. Senator Tuberville has blocked more than 300 high ranking military positions hurting our military readiness, with cascading impacts throughout the chain of command, and inflicting unnecessary disruption for military families.

As Carlos Del Toro, Frank Kendall, and Christine Wormuth write, "Three of our five military branches — the Army, Navy and Marine Corps — have no Senate-confirmed service chief in place. Instead, these jobs — and dozens of others across the force — are being performed by acting officials without the full range of legal authorities necessary to make the decisions that will sustain the United States' military edge. Across the services, many generals and admirals are being forced to perform two roles simultaneously. The strain of this double duty places a real and unfair burden on these officers, the organizations they lead and their families."

Another Washington Post report highlights this significant impact for the more than 300 servicemembers awaiting confirmation, including for General Eric Smith, who is nominated to be the Marine Corps' top general. Because of Senator Tuberville's holds, General Smith is unable to do his job with full authority – which includes being unable to release planning guidance used by more than 200,000 active-duty troops and reservists under his command.

Read the full stories below:

Washington Post: Opinion: Three service secretaries to Tuberville: Stop this dangerous hold on senior officers
Carlos Del Toro is secretary of the Navy. Frank Kendall is secretary of the Air Force. Christine Wormuth is secretary of the Army.
[Carlos Del Toro, Frank Kendall and Christine Wormuth, 9/4/23]

As the civilian leaders of the Navy, Air Force, Space Force and Army, we are proud to work alongside exceptional military leaders who are skilled, motivated and empowered to protect our national security.

These officers and the millions of service members they lead are the foundation of America's enduring military advantage. Yet this foundation is being actively eroded by the actions of a single U.S. senator, Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who is blocking the confirmation of our most senior military officers.

The senator asserts that this blanket and unprecedented "hold," which he has maintained for more than six months, is about opposition to Defense Department policies that ensure service members and their families have access to reproductive health no matter where they are stationed.

After the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, this policy is critical and necessary to meet our obligations to the force. It is also fully within the law, as confirmed by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

Senators have many legislative and oversight tools to show their opposition to a specific policy. They are free to introduce legislation, gather support for that legislation and pass it. But placing a blanket hold on all general and flag officer nominees, who as apolitical officials have traditionally been exempt from the hold process, is unfair to these military leaders and their families.

And it is putting our national security at risk.

Thus far, the hold has prevented the Defense Department from placing almost 300 of our most experienced and battle-tested leaders into critical posts around the world.

Three of our five military branches — the Army, Navy and Marine Corps — have no Senate-confirmed service chief in place. Instead, these jobs — and dozens of others across the force — are being performed by acting officials without the full range of legal authorities necessary to make the decisions that will sustain the United States' military edge.

Across the services, many generals and admirals are being forced to perform two roles simultaneously. The strain of this double duty places a real and unfair burden on these officers, the organizations they lead and their families.

The blanket hold is also exacting a personal toll on those who least deserve it.

Each of us has seen the stress this hold is inflicting up and down the chain of command, whether in the halls of the Pentagon or at bases and outposts around the world.

We know officers who have incurred significant unforeseen expenses and are facing genuine financial stress because they have had to relocate their families or unexpectedly maintain two residences.

Military spouses who have worked to build careers of their own are unable to look for jobs because they don't know when or if they will move. Children haven't known where they will go to school, which is particularly hard given how frequently military children change schools already.

These military leaders are being forced to endure costly separations from their families — a painful experience they have come to know from nearly 20 years of deployments to places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

All because of the actions of a single senator.

Any claim that holding up the promotions of top officers does not directly damage the military is wrong — plain and simple.

The leaders whose lives and careers are on hold include scores of combat veterans who have led our troops into deadly combat with valor and distinction in the decades since 9/11. These men and women each have decades of experience and are exactly who we want — and need — to be leading our military at such a critical period of time.

The impact of this hold does not stop at these officers or their family members.

With the promotions of our most senior leaders on hold, there is a domino effect upending the lives of our more junior officers, too.

Looking over the horizon, the prolonged uncertainty and political battles over these military nominations will have a corrosive effect on the force.

The generals and admirals who will be leading our forces a decade from now are colonels and captains today. They are watching this spectacle and might conclude that their service at the highest ranks of our military is no longer valued by members of Congress or, by extension, the American public.

Rather than continue making sacrifices to serve our nation, some might leave uniformed service for other opportunities, robbing the Defense Department of talent cultivated over decades that we now need most to maintain our superiority over our rivals and adversaries.

Throughout our careers in national security, we have deeply valued the bipartisan support shown for our service members and their families. But rather than seeking a resolution to this impasse in that spirit, Tuberville has suggested he is going to further escalate this confrontation by launching baseless political attacks against these men and women.

We believe that the vast majority of senators and of Americans across the political spectrum recognize the stakes of this moment and the dangers of politicizing our military leaders. It is time to lift this dangerous hold and confirm our senior military leaders.

Washington Post: Marines' top general 'ruthlessly' rides out Tuberville's military hold
Gen. Eric Smith, restricted by the Republican senator's promotion blockade, charts a steady, careful path to prepare for America's next major conflict
[Dan Lamothe, 9/4/23]

Gen. Eric M. Smith has a vision for furthering the Marine Corps' transformation from a force shaped by two decades of counterinsurgency warfare into one that's optimized for a great-power clash, possibly with China.

He can't share it with anyone, though.

The United States, Smith said in a recent interview, finds itself in an "interwar period" and must take full advantage of peacetime to regroup and advance new fighting concepts.

But the general, selected by President Biden to become the Marines' next top officer, is one of more than 300 senior military leaders whose nominations are on hold, caught in an acrimonious months-long dispute between Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) and the administration stemming from the Pentagon's abortion policy. And so, Smith said, for now he must "ruthlessly adhere" to admonitions from the Senate that he not presume his next assignment is assured.

"People say, 'What's your commandant's planning guidance?'" Smith said, referring to a major document that the Marine Corps leader typically distributes at the outset of his term, to set priorities and expectations for the 200,000 active-duty troops and reservists under his command. The general's reply: "You'll have to ask the 39th commandant when that person is confirmed," he said, "because I cannot work on that document."

At 58, Smith is battle-tested — in Iraq, in Afghanistan and, equally importantly, in Washington. It appears there is Senate consensus that he possesses the relevant experience and requisite expertise to guide the nation's crisis-response force through the next four years. At his confirmation hearing in June, lawmakers from both political parties praised his experience — with Tuberville saying a few weeks later that he has "a great deal of admiration" for the general and that there was "little doubt" about his suitability for the post.

Yet for the foreseeable future, Smith — along with the incoming heads of the Army, Navy and, soon, the Air Force — will do his job with the limited authority of an acting administrator — marking the first time in more than a century that the Marines have been without a Senate-confirmed service chief. Smith is barred even from moving into the Home of the Commandants, a historic D.C. residence occupied by the Corps' top officer since the 1800s.

This portrait of the Marines' prospective leader is based on interviews with Smith and a dozen current and former Marines. Though colleagues see him as highly qualified, some worry that the longer Tuberville's gambit continues, the more challenging it will be for Smith to reorient the service and prepare the force for America's next major conflict.

"It's only been a couple of months. Can he deal with that? Sure. But how much longer?" said Robert Neller, a retired general who served as the top Marine from 2015 to 2019. "At some point, he has to put his stamp on the organization as commandant."

'Waiting is not an option'

Tuberville has said he'll lift his hold on Biden's nominations, imposed in February, only after the Pentagon rescinds its policy of reimbursing travel costs for military personnel who cannot obtain an abortion in the state where they are stationed. Administration officials enacted the program after last year's Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that had protected for nearly 50 years a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

Service members, defense officials say, do not choose where they serve and deserve access to reproductive care. Tuberville's view is that federal money should not be used to pay for any expense affiliated with abortion. Neither side has budged.

Smith has tread carefully in his public statements about the controversy, telling lawmakers in June that the promotions hold "compromises our ability to be most ready," thus endangering national security.

He has sought to reassure Marines that the political gridlock will not upend the service, though. During a wide-ranging discussion at the Pentagon, he insisted that plans for modernization will proceed apace.

"There's no issue," Smith said, "with that acceleration at all."

Privately, though, service officials acknowledge that challenges and concerns are beginning to mount. For instance, Tuberville's hold also has frozen the nominations of Smith's prospective replacement as assistant commandant, Lt. Gen. Christopher Mahoney, and 16 other senior officers slated for roles either overseeing tens of thousands of troops or setting and directing policy.

One Marine official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal conversations, said that while lower-ranking generals will hold some of those positions on an interim basis, there's growing apprehension about how effective they can be over the long term, and what the ramifications for unit readiness and troop discipline may be.

Smith addressed the situation in a letter to all Marines on Aug. 1, writing that, while he cannot predict how long the impasse will last, "waiting is not an option."

Smith wrote that despite the tumult, he intends to press ahead with the controversial force-structure overhaul that began under Gen. David H. Berger, who retired as commandant in July. He offered few specifics, leaving the letter "intentionally broad" so that a confirmed service chief has room to impart guidance.

Smith has played a central role in the effort, which has culled the service's fleet of battle tanks and much of its artillery while researching new ways to deter Chinese aspirations in the Pacific. The concept calls for sharpening the Marines' ability to launch long-range missiles from ships or islands and then move quickly to avoid counterattack.

The concept has proved divisive, with some retired generals arguing that it has gutted the service's ability to conduct other core missions, including intense combat with a powerful adversary — as U.S. leaders are watching unfold now with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Smith has defended the shake-up, saying the Pentagon must, above all, prepare to face down its chief military competitor, China. But he also has left open the possibility that some changes made so far could be reconsidered.

Smith told The Washington Post that, already, officials have revised one proposal calling for the Marines' standard infantry battalion to shrink from 896 to 735 personnel, an attempt to make the units more nimble. The service now thinks 811 troops is the right size, Smith said, and could revise the figure again.

The prospective commandant also foresees the service scrutinizing lessons from Ukraine, noting that in a "fairly stalemated war," the range of artillery matters a great deal and that troops who fail to hide their radio communications will come under fire.

Another priority that awaits: There is a dwindling number of warships to move troops at sea. For years, the Marine Corps said it needed 38, but the Navy has shrunk that number over time. The Marines now say they need at least 31, but the Navy has signaled it could cut even more. It's a significant concern, officials say, citing the scramble in April when the United States moved to evacuate its embassy in Sudan but had no Marines at sea nearby to assist.

Smith, as a three-star general, worked closely on the issue with his Navy counterpart, Vice Adm. James Kilby, whose nomination to become the Navy's next No. 2 officer also is ensnared in Tuberville's hold. The two are friends who even go fly-fishing together, but Kilby's recommendation was to shed three more amphibious ships and apply the financial savings to other missions.

Kilby, in a phone interview, said that while he and Smith have different viewpoints, they want to model civility and collaboration between the services.

"There has never been a time where I said, 'Am I talking to the real Eric Smith here?'" Kilby said. "The answer is always yes."

[…]

The battles ahead

The Pentagon's dispute with Tuberville shows no signs of abating, leaving Smith and other affected officers in uncharted territory.

One possibility is that Senate Democrats eventually agree to bring forth the military's most important nominees to vote on them one-by-one. Tuberville's hold specifically blocks the Senate from using a process known as unanimous consent to vote on uncontroversial nominees in batches, but lawmakers could vote on nominees individually, a laborious process but one that would at least install new senior leaders.

Smith and other senior leaders have pointed out the potential harm that the senator's blockade might cause, including, some fear, an exodus of lower-ranking officers who could decide it's not worth continuing their military service amid the political chaos.

[…]

CNN: Top military leaders call on Tuberville to stop 'dangerous' holds on military nominations
[Shawna Mizelle and Mary Kay Mallonee, 9/5/23]

Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville's monthslong standoff that has blocked military promotions over the Pentagon's abortion care policy is "putting our national security at risk," three of the nation's senior-most military officials are warning in a Washington Post op-ed that published Monday night.

The op-ed, authored by Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth and Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, is an unusual public intervention in a congressional political dispute and reflects the frustration felt at the highest levels of the US military over Tuberville's holds, which have been in place for six months.

"Senators have many legislative and oversight tools to show their opposition to a specific policy. They are free to introduce legislation, gather support for that legislation and pass it. But placing a blanket hold on all general and flag officer nominees, who as apolitical officials have traditionally been exempt from the hold process, is unfair to these military leaders and their families. And it is putting our national security at risk," the leaders write.

Tuberville, of Alabama, has delayed the confirmations of more than 300 top military nominees over his opposition to the Pentagon's policy of reimbursing service members and their families who have to travel to receive abortion care. In the Senate, one senator can hold up nominations or legislation, and Tuberville's stance has left three military services to operate without a Senate-confirmed leader for the first time in history.

[…]

Without the replacements, the "foundation of America's enduring military advantage is being actively eroded" by Tuberville, and the holds also have "a domino effect upending the lives of our more junior officers, too," the leaders write.

"We know officers who have incurred significant unforeseen expenses and are facing genuine financial stress because they have had to relocate their families or unexpectedly maintain two residences," they write. "Military spouses who have worked to build careers of their own are unable to look for jobs because they don't know when or if they will move. Children haven't known where they will go to school, which is particularly hard given how frequently military children change schools already."

The op-ed concludes, "We believe that the vast majority of senators and of Americans across the political spectrum recognize the stakes of this moment and the dangers of politicizing our military leaders. It is time to lift this dangerous hold and confirm our senior military leaders."

CNN has reached out to Tuberville's office for comment. In July, Tuberville posted on X, "I didn't start this. The Biden admin injected politics in the military and imposed an unlawful abortion policy on American taxpayers. I am trying to get politics out of the military."

Tuberville says the Pentagon is violating law with the reproductive health policies that include, among other things, a travel allowance for troops and their families who must travel to receive an abortion because of the state laws where they are stationed. Pentagon officials have pointed to a Justice Department memo that says the policies are lawful.

The holds first began in March and Tuberville has held his ground despite mounting public pressure.

Active-duty military spouses hand-delivered a petition to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Tuberville in July signed by hundreds of military family members who were "deeply concerned and personally impacted by Senator Tuberville blocking confirmation of senior military leaders."

By the end of this year, there will be more than 600 military officers up for nomination, including the nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. C.Q. Brown, who has been nominated by President Joe Biden to take over for Army Gen. Mark Milley.

Among other positions, the chief of naval operations, Army chief of staff and Marine Corps commandant are serving in acting capacities. In some cases, the officer filling the role on a temporary basis is lower-ranking than the officer who was nominated to take the position; the Missile Defense Agency, for example, is being led by a one-star in an acting capacity despite the position typically being filled by a three-star general.