At the end of last week, U.S. Reps. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, Greg Steube, R-Fla., and Michael Waltz, R-Fla., sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall expressing their deep concern with a speech given by U.S. Space Force Lieutenant General DeAnna Burt, Deputy Chief of Space Operations for Operations, Cyber, and Nuclear, at a Pentagon Pride event earlier this month.
During her remarks, Burt stated, while in uniform, that: “Since January of this year, more than 400 anti-LGBTQ+ laws have been introduced at the state level. That number is rising and demonstrates a trend that could be dangerous for service members, their families, and the readiness of the force as a whole. When I look at potential candidates, say, for squadron command, I strive to match the right person to the right job. I consider their job performance and relevant experience first. However, I also look at their personal circumstances, and their family is also an important factor,”
She continued, “If the good match for a job does not feel safe being themselves and performing at their highest potential at a given location, or if their family could be denied critical health care due to the laws in that state, I am compelled to consider a different candidate, and, perhaps, less qualified.”
“These remarks refer to state legislatures which are protecting children by preventing their exposure to sexual material in schools and barring gender transition operations for minors. Lt. Gen. Burt’s speech, again conducted publicly and uniform, inappropriately commented on laws passed by elected officials reflected the views of their constituents and raises serious concerns about civilian oversight of the military,” Waltz’s office noted.
The letter is below:
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing to express my deep concern with a speech given by U.S. Space Force Lieutenant General DeAnna Burt at a Pentagon Pride event on June 7, 2023. Lt. Gen. Burt currently serves as the Space Force’s Deputy Chief of Space Operations for Operations, Cyber, and Nuclear, making her one of the most important officials in an organization that is vital to the national security of the United States.
At this event, Lt. Gen. Burt said, while in uniform, that she would base promotion and posting decisions on an officer’s sexuality and not their ability to effectively do their assigned job. “Since January of this year, more than 400 anti-LGBTQ+ laws have been introduced at the state level. That number is rising and demonstrates a trend that could be dangerous for service members, their families, and the readiness of the force as a whole,” she said. “When I look at potential candidates, say, for squadron command, I strive to match the right person to the right job. I consider their job performance and relevant experience first. However, I also look at their personal circumstances, and their family is also an important factor,” Lt. Gen. Burt continued. “If the good match for a job does not feel safe being themselves and performing at their highest potential at a given location, or if their family could be denied critical health care due to the laws in that state, I am compelled to consider a different candidate, and, perhaps, less qualified.”
By reasonable inference, Lt. Gen. Burt is referring to state legislatures like Florida, which are protecting children by preventing their exposure to sexual material in schools and barring gender-transition operations for minors. Lt. Gen. Burt’s speech, again conducted publicly and in uniform, inappropriately commented on laws passed by elected officials reflected the views of their constituents and raises serious concerns about civilian oversight of the military.
The Space Force must clarify this policy change alleged by one of its most senior leaders. Among other issues, it could have enormous impact on operations and readiness. As you know, Florida is home to Patrick Space Force Base (SFB) and an estimated 13,000 military, civilians, contractors, and dependents associated with the base and its mission. Patrick SFB houses Space Launch Delta 45, which controls and operates Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and the Eastern Range, a vital task.
Additionally, the Air Force recently decided to base the Space Training and Readiness
Command (STARCOM) at Patrick SFB in Florida. STARCOM plays a critical role in our national security and is responsible for educating and training Guardians, developing the Space Force’s doctrine and tactics, and testing Space Force capabilities. The basing decision is expected to bring more than 350 personnel to STARCOM once it reaches full operational capability.
If posting and promotion decisions for Patrick SFB and STARCOM are determined based on political concerns over state law, and the Space Force is posting less qualified officers to Patrick SFB, that would be an egregious dereliction of the Defense Department’s primary responsibility to ensure the Armed Forces are ready to deter and if necessary, defeat our adversaries.
In light of Lt. Gen. Burt’s comments, I request answers to the following questions.
• Do you agree with Lt. Gen Burt’s decision to intentionally promote less qualified Guardians?
• What is the impact to the Space Force when senior leadership intentionally promotes and stations less qualified candidates based on progressive ideology?
• Would the Space Force extend the same courtesy to Guardians who may be concerned about their Second Amendment rights and their ability to protect their family near a high crime city like Chicago, which also has restrictive gun laws? Would it similarly locate servicemembers away from localities expressing their religious freedom like the Muslim-majority city of Hamtramck, MI, that voted not to fly pride flags on government buildings? I hope it is apparent to you from these questions the slippery slope of political issues the Department should avoid when making personnel decisions.
• What is the Space Force’s policy on uniformed officers commenting on laws passed by duly elected legislatures at the federal, state or local level? Lt. Gen Burt’s comments seem to reflect a policy change with enormous implications for civil-military relations.
Our nation faces an existential threat from the Chinese Communist Party, which views space as a domain of war and a place to build an asymmetrical advantage against the United States. This challenge is too important to allow general officer political views to impact military personnel decisions. I look forward to your prompt reply to these important questions.
Author
