It is rare to see a Defense Department nominee drawing as much opposition, based on his record, as Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr.  has received.  Nevertheless, on September 20, Gen. Clark was confirmed to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on an 83-11 vote. 

CMR appreciates the Republican Senators who voted No, but the list should have been longer: Tommy Tuberville (AL), Mike Braun (IN), Josh Hawley (MO), Eric Schmitt (MO), Marco Rubio (FL), Ted Cruz (TX), Roger Marshall (KS), Mike Lee (UT), Ron Johnson (WI), Cynthia Lummis (WY), and J.D. Vance (OH).  Tom Cotton (AR), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Debbie Stabenow (MI) did not vote.

Gen. Clark’s record as Air Force Chief of Staff, and his leftist philosophy, fully justified No votes on his confirmation.  As noted in a Conservative Action Project Memo for the Movement, the Heritage Foundation’s 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength downgraded the performance of the Air Force from “weak” to “very weak” due to “the deepening of previously assessed issues related to aging aircraft and very poor pilot training and retention.” 

Gen. Brown promised to make Air Force flight proficiency and safety standards a priority, but these standards have decreased on his watch.  Pilot shortages persist, several fleets of important aircraft have not met mission-capability goals, and the entire B-2 bomber fleet was grounded from December 2022 to May 2023.

This did not deter Gen. Brown from co-signing a Memorandum specifying discriminatory racial goals for Air Force officers – part of the Air Force’s constant involvement in a radical “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) agenda.  As reported here, the Air Force announced its intent to reduce the number of white officers from 80% to 67.5%. 

Officials always deny “quotas” based on race, but the relentless pursuit of preferred racial percentages compromises respect for individual “merit” and “qualifications.” Demographic goals such as this convey the message to devalued mid-career pilots that they might want to take their flying skills elsewhere. 

An Open Letter initiated by CMR encouraged Senate Armed Services Committee members to ask specific questions of Gen. Clark on specific issues ranging from meritocracy in the military, to mandates for percentage-based racial discrimination at the military service academies, “gender-neutral” pronouns, critical race theory (CRT) education programs that promote racial stereotypes and anti-American attitudes, and transgender policies that violate servicewomen’s privacy and rights to compete on military athletic teams reserved for women.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) did raise good questions during a confirmation hearing last July.  Among other things, Sen. Rounds questioned Gen. Brown about the plight of a female constituent and National Guard trainee who was forced to share open-bay barracks and showers with biological men claiming to be women.

• Fred Lucas, Daily Signal: What Biden’s Top Military Pick Has to Say about 18 Year-old Woman in National Guard Required to Shower With Males (includes video)

Gen. Brown’s commitment to “look at” the situation was by no means reassuring.  Threats to women in situations where their personal privacy and modesty are violated are not an anomaly; they are caused by transgender policies that Gen. Brown fully supports.

Equivocation about “Equality”

CMR obtained Gen. Brown’s responses to written Question for the Record submitted after conclusion of the hearing by Ranking Member Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO).  Most of Gen. Brown’s responses to Questions 20-28 and 54-60 displayed a pattern of lawyerly evasion and equivocation that should have caused more senators to vote No.

Question 23, for example, asked whether a servicemember who objects to being forced to share intimate living quarters with a transgender should be allowed to change his or her living situation.  Question 24 further inquired how such conditions affect good order and discipline, and Question 25 asked how female servicemembers are supposed to know if a biological male has officially changed his “gender marker” and therefore has permission to use female facilities.

In every case, General Brown (or his lawyers) responded with wiggle words that did not answer the questions.  His stated intent to obtain “feedback” and promises to be “respectful of all service members and their privacy” failed to acknowledge that when the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System (DEERS) bureaucracy changes the “gender marker” of a physically intact biological male to “female,” DoD regulations require “inclusion” of that man in women’s living quarters and showers.

Question 54 asked whether Gen. Brown agreed with the Department of Justice’s statements in oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the recent Harvard/University of N. Carolina case that racial preferences exist and should continue in ROTC programs and at the military service academies as a matter of national security.

Brown claimed he was unfamiliar with the government’s oral arguments, but added, “[I]t is my understanding the ruling does not apply to military academies.”  This reply dodged the question about whether he agreed that racial discrimination should continue.

It also suggested that Brown will advise President Biden to continue discriminatory practices until a Court, Congress, or a new President directs the service academies to stop discriminating on the basis of race. 

In the same way, when Question 55 asked if he would “take steps to ensure that the service academies eliminate the consideration of race as factor in admissions decisions as other non-military universities are now required,” Gen. Brown missed the opportunity to support elimination of race as a factor in admissions decisions.  Instead, Brown affirmed support for “a fair opportunity” to be selected for admission. 

The phrase “fair opportunity” is equivocal and open to different interpretations.  The concept easily could accommodate racial discrimination to meet what Brown called the “needs of the Services.”  Advocates of DEI preferences often claim that it is not “fair” if a particular group is “underrepresented.”  And if the goal is to have a military that “looks like America,” selecting racial minorities over better qualified non-minorities satisfies the undefined “needs of the service” for more “racial balance.” 

Brown’s response to Question 56, referencing the Supreme Court’s inclusion of ROTC programs in its recent Harvard/UMC ruling barring racial discrimination in admissions decisions, set up a straw man falsely suggesting that someone wants to close the academies to qualified students.

His non-response to Question 57 called for a “fair opportunity to perform,” without answering the question about “race-consciousness.”  And in response to Question 58, Gen. Brown blurred the difference between “equality” (individual rights) and “equity,” (group outcomes).  In actual practice, if the goal is “racial balance,” group rights trump individual rights.

Brown also failed to provide requested evidence that would “demonstrate the benefits of the numerous Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion positions hired in the Department of Defense in the last several years.” (Question 59) Brown’s dismissive reply essentially asserted, “because I say so.” 

Finally, when Question 60 asked Brown whether “racial balance or diversity [should] take precedence over competence in any military unit?” Brown answered “No.”  The new Joint Chiefs Chairman should be held to that, but his use of the phrase “fair opportunity” instead of “equal opportunity,” and his apparent consideration of skin color as a “qualification,” still raises doubts.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff advises the President; he is not in the chain of command and does not issue orders or directives.  Still, Gen. Brown will have enormous influence.  The former Air Force pilot could provide sound leadership if he changes his emphasis from diversity to meritocracy in all decisions affecting men and women in the military.