Bill Overview
Title: Restoring Military Focus Act
Description: This bill eliminates the position of Chief Diversity Officer within the Department of Defense (DOD), as well as the position of Senior Advisor for Diversity and Inclusion within the military departments. Additionally, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds to establish similar positions to that of Chief Diversity Officer or Senior Advisor for Diversity and Inclusion within DOD.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals associated with the U.S. Department of Defense
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The bill affects the Department of Defense (DOD), an organization that has over 2.8 million employees including active duty military, reserve, and civilian employees.
- The bill targets diversity and inclusion positions, which influence policies that affect all service members and employees regarding diversity and inclusion training and initiatives.
- Increasingly diverse populations within the U.S. military will directly feel the impact of the change in focus from diversity and inclusion to other priorities.
- Global allies and partners might perceive changes in U.S. military policies on diversity and inclusion, potentially impacting international perceptions and relationships.
Reasoning
- This policy affects roles within the DOD that have been tasked with overseeing diversity and inclusion initiatives, which could impact the work environment for service members and civilian employees.
- The removal of these roles might lead to a perceived reduction in focus on diversity, potentially impacting minority groups or women more significantly than others.
- The potential impact of removing these initiatives might not be immediate and would vary greatly depending on individual roles and intersections of identity such as race, gender, and rank in the military.
- While some might see the removal of these positions as refocusing resources on mission-critical tasks, others might perceive it as a step backward in terms of ensuring equality and inclusivity in the workplace.
- Given the context and budget constraints, the impact on wellbeing related to workplace culture might be minimal in the short-term but could emphasize issues related to diversity over time.
- The U.S. military's stance on diversity is crucial for certain groups but might be perceived differently based on values around organizational efficacy versus diversity focus.
Simulated Interviews
Naval Officer (Norfolk, Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the focus should always be on operational effectiveness, and sometimes the emphasis on diversity initiatives feels like it creates unnecessary red tape.
- It might be a positive to slightly streamline operations without these roles.
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 |
DOD Civilian Employee (San Diego, California)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the removal of these positions as they provide important resources and support for underrepresented groups.
- Diversity and Inclusion directly contribute to a more understanding workplace, which I value immensely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Army Reservist (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The military can often feel like an 'old boys' club' and diversity initiatives were starting to change that culture.
- This policy feels like a step backward and may impact how minority groups are treated or perceived.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Air Force Officer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an officer who has regularly participated in diversity and inclusion training, these programs are important for fostering a respectful environment.
- Removing these positions could halt progress made in creating more inclusive workspaces.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Retired Army Veteran (Fayetteville, North Carolina)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From my perspective, the focus should always be on combat readiness and mission success over other initiatives.
- The removal of these roles might allow the focus to shift back toward those goals more efficiently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Marine Corp Officer (Honolulu, Hawaii)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who doesn't fit into traditional gender roles, diversity initiatives are crucial for support and understanding.
- The removal could create further challenges in acceptance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Army Lieutenant (Fort Hood, Texas)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might set back the progress we have been making on making the military an inclusive environment for everyone.
- I worry it might lead to more instances of discrimination going unchecked.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Space Force Cadet (Colorado Springs, Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The lack of a focus on diversity could highlight existing culture clashes and make it harder for newcomers to assimilate.
- A diverse focus should be a priority in modern militaries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
Pentagon Staff (Arlington, Virginia)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining can often be very efficient, but at what cost? Removing these positions might ignore systemic issues.
- It’s about maintaining a balance between efficiency and being responsive to those issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
DOD Contractor (Columbus, Georgia)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The removal might not impact my day-to-day much, but I have seen how these roles influence positive changes.
- Having structure in place for diversity is generally positive for morale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $-5000000 (Low: $-4000000, High: $-6000000)
Year 2: $-5000000 (Low: $-4000000, High: $-6000000)
Year 3: $-5000000 (Low: $-4000000, High: $-6000000)
Year 5: $-5000000 (Low: $-4000000, High: $-6000000)
Year 10: $-5000000 (Low: $-4000000, High: $-6000000)
Year 100: $-5000000 (Low: $-4000000, High: $-6000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's primary cost-saving mechanism is the elimination of specific job roles within the DOD that focus on diversity and inclusion, which might have implications for organizational culture.
- Potential long-term implications on recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups could impact military effectiveness and cohesion.
- Global partners monitoring U.S. military policies might interpret changes as shifts in U.S. policy priorities.