Opening Statement (As Prepared)
Click here to view the hearing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to begin by emphasizing that extremism has no place in the United States military. We rely on the professionalism, discipline, and integrity of our armed forces to defend our nation and uphold our values as Americans.
I’m hopeful that this hearing will provide our witnesses with an opportunity to discuss what transpired at Fort Liberty and explain how the Department of the Army can improve the development and approval of extremism training materials for service members.
Extremist ideologies, whether rooted in hate, violence, or division, threaten the cohesion and readiness of our forces and undermine the trust that the American people place in our national security.
As we confront extremism, we must also remain vigilant in protecting our service members’ constitutional right to free speech. Like all Americans, our military personnel have the right to express their political, social, or religious views in their personal capacity—so long as they do not engage in actions that incite violence, undermine good order and discipline, or threaten unit cohesion. This is a critical balance that leaders must maintain.
That brings me to a concerning issue regarding the terror awareness training at Fort Liberty, North Carolina. As we understand it, this training has, for years, erroneously identified specific non-profit organizations as terrorist groups. The groups identified span the political and ideological spectrum.
Incorrectly labeling legitimate organizations as terrorist groups not only undermines the credibility of the training but also puts service members at risk of being unfairly scrutinized or penalized based on their associations or memberships.
We must be cautious and purposeful in how we define and identify threats to our national security. Our focus must remain on actions, behaviors, and credible threats.
The Army must avoid creating an environment where service members fear they could be unfairly targeted based on their personal beliefs or associations, so long as those associations do not translate into actions or imminent threats of violence.
Incorrectly labeling groups can blur the lines between legitimate efforts to combat extremism and infringements on individual rights. Those mistakes can also weaken service members’ trust in the training itself, which is vital to its effectiveness in helping our soldiers live up to their full potential.
I look forward to clear answers today about how this mistake happened, what steps the Army is taking to correct it, and how the Army will ensure that future training materials are more accurately and carefully vetted.
I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony and responses to our questions today.
I’m hopeful that this hearing will provide our witnesses with an opportunity to discuss what transpired at Fort Liberty and explain how the Department of the Army can improve the development and approval of extremism training materials for service members.
Extremist ideologies, whether rooted in hate, violence, or division, threaten the cohesion and readiness of our forces and undermine the trust that the American people place in our national security.
As we confront extremism, we must also remain vigilant in protecting our service members’ constitutional right to free speech. Like all Americans, our military personnel have the right to express their political, social, or religious views in their personal capacity—so long as they do not engage in actions that incite violence, undermine good order and discipline, or threaten unit cohesion. This is a critical balance that leaders must maintain.
That brings me to a concerning issue regarding the terror awareness training at Fort Liberty, North Carolina. As we understand it, this training has, for years, erroneously identified specific non-profit organizations as terrorist groups. The groups identified span the political and ideological spectrum.
Incorrectly labeling legitimate organizations as terrorist groups not only undermines the credibility of the training but also puts service members at risk of being unfairly scrutinized or penalized based on their associations or memberships.
We must be cautious and purposeful in how we define and identify threats to our national security. Our focus must remain on actions, behaviors, and credible threats.
The Army must avoid creating an environment where service members fear they could be unfairly targeted based on their personal beliefs or associations, so long as those associations do not translate into actions or imminent threats of violence.
Incorrectly labeling groups can blur the lines between legitimate efforts to combat extremism and infringements on individual rights. Those mistakes can also weaken service members’ trust in the training itself, which is vital to its effectiveness in helping our soldiers live up to their full potential.
I look forward to clear answers today about how this mistake happened, what steps the Army is taking to correct it, and how the Army will ensure that future training materials are more accurately and carefully vetted.
I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony and responses to our questions today.
###