There’s too much ‘gray area’ in Army extremism policies, lawmakers say

Lawmakers criticized new Army rules about extremism in the ranks, arguing they’re ambiguous and leave too much room for commanders to interpret.

Members of the House Armed Service Committee questioned Army leaders about the rules during a hearing Thursday. The rules, introduced in June, say commanders must ensure troops are trained about off-limits extremist activities, take action when they spot extremism in their units and report any incidents to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General.

The rules codify the Pentagon’s definition of extremist activities, which was updated in 2021 to include online interactions that promote terrorism, as well as rallies, fundraising and organizing in support of extremist ideologies, among other prohibited behaviors.

Rep. Jill Tokuda, R-Hawaii, questioned Lt. Gen. Patrick Matlock, the Army deputy chief of staff, about who makes the final determination when a soldier is accused of engaging in a potential extremist activity. Matlock said that responsibility fell to commanders, who could consult with legal and law enforcement experts before coming to a decision on whether something should be labeled as extremism.

“I think the problem here is we have a diffused sense of accountability,” Tokuda said. “If every single command has its own arbitrary, subjective ability to make a determination on an extremist activity, therein lies your problem, and I think you have to answer the question of where does the buck stop.”

RELATED

Rep. Terri Sewill, D-Ala., likewise said there was too much “gray area” about what constituted active participation in extremism. The Army’s rules add another layer of accountability but don’t solve the problem, she said.

“There still seems to be enough of a gulf that you could drive a Mack truck through,” Sewill told Matlock and Agnes Gereben Schaefer, the assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and reserve affairs. “There’s still gray area, and that leads to ambiguity and subjectivity. It makes it harder for those of us who hear legitimate complaints from our service members about extremism to actually have those addressed.”

Sewill joined other Democratic lawmakers to advocate for legislation in 2021 that would’ve established an office of countering extremism within the Defense Department. That measure was dropped due to Republican opposition.

Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., asked Army leaders Thursday about how troops were educated on the extremist policies. The Army’s new rules mandate the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command add information about prohibited extremist activities into initial active duty training, precommissioning training, commander training and professional military education, among other training programs,.

Commanders also have the responsibility of advising troops periodically about extremist activities and how they are “inconsistent with the Army goals, beliefs and values, as well as the oaths of office and enlistment,” the rules state.

Matlock said he had reviewed the training materials ahead of Thursday’s hearing, and he described them as “very well designed.”

“It’s delivered in a standard package across the Army,” Matlock said. “We take maintaining good order and discipline in our formations very seriously, and the extremism policy is a key part of how we do that and deliver combat-ready units.”

This story was produced in partnership with Military Veterans in Journalism. Please send tips to [email protected].