Bill Overview
Title: USB Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to ensure that the number of members of the Armed Forces who are deployed because of the situation in Ukraine does not exceed the number of members of the Armed Forces who are deployed to the southern border of the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the Armed Forces affected by the USB Act
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill affects members of the Armed Forces, determining their deployment locations.
- There are approximately 1.3 million active duty service members in the U.S. Armed Forces, but not all will be impacted.
- Not all active duty members are involved in deployments related to Ukraine or the Southern Border; only a subset will be.
- U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe, especially near Ukraine, has increased due to geopolitical tensions.
- The U.S. southern border has a fluctuating military presence usually influenced by immigration policies and border security needs.
- The bill implies a balance in troop deployment between Ukraine-related areas and the U.S. southern border.
Reasoning
- The target population of this policy is specifically members of the Armed Forces, especially those related to deployments involving Ukraine or the U.S. southern border.
- Due to the targeted nature of this policy, not every service member is affected, with an estimate of around 50,000 potentially impacted directly by deployment decisions.
- The Cantril Wellbeing Scale measures individuals' perceived quality of life, which can be influenced by factors like location of deployment, separation from family, and perceived safety.
- The policy aims to balance deployment, potentially reducing stress on forces over-deployed in one area, which could improve their wellbeing if managed well.
- Given the fiscal constraints, the policy's impact is likely to be limited to reallocation rather than expansion of total troop numbers.
- We also include individuals not directly affected by the policy to provide a broad perspective.
Simulated Interviews
Marine Corps Infantryman (San Diego, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The constant state of readiness for deployment has been stressful.
- Balancing deployments makes sense but I hope it won't mean constant shuffling between locations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Army Logistics Officer (Fort Bliss, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Deployment locations should be carefully chosen based on need.
- The policy might equalize stress but resources could be strained.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Special Forces Operator (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could alleviate some deployment pressures.
- I prefer stability over being constantly reassigned.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Air Force Intelligence Analyst (El Paso, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not directly affected by Ukraine deployments, but border focus is crucial.
- Policy balancing seems fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Army Mechanic (Ft. Hood, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy might reduce uncertainty about whereabouts of deployment.
- Still worried about the frequency of moves.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Coast Guard Officer (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Primarily focused on northern operations, but reallocation could affect resources universally.
- Policy is reasonable but my role is less impacted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Military Nurse (Schofield Barracks, HI)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is understandable but stability in deployment would be more beneficial.
- Concerned about availability of medical resources if deployments increase at both ends.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Navy SEAL (Virginia Beach, VA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy seems designed for more regular forces, less impact on special forces.
- Constant deployment is part of the job regardless of location shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Military Strategist (Pentagon, DC)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such policies are crucial for strategic alignment and resource optimization.
- Actual systemic impact on wellbeing will depend on implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Marine Corps Officer (Camp Lejeune, NC)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Deployment balance might help morale if done correctly.
- Policy should not mean just redistribution without considering strategic needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $52500000, High: $157500000)
Year 3: $110250000 (Low: $55125000, High: $165375000)
Year 5: $121500000 (Low: $60750000, High: $182250000)
Year 10: $148700000 (Low: $74350000, High: $223050000)
Year 100: $2718600000 (Low: $1359300000, High: $4077900000)
Key Considerations
- The policy requires balancing troop deployment, which may face logistical and operational challenges.
- Costs are primarily associated with redeployment logistics and border operational needs.
- Potential savings can be realized through reduced foreign deployments.
- There might be minor humanitarian implications if defensive operational capacity is shifted.