U.S. Representative Jim Banks (R-IN), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, delivered the following opening remarks at a hearing on extremism policies in the U.S. Army in the wake of a Ft. Liberty training that wrongly characterized pro-life organizations as terrorist groups.
Rep. Banks’ remarks as prepared for delivery:
I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Military Personnel subcommittee.
Today we are here to address a foundational concern of American Democracy…Freedom of Speech…A fundamental right that the Department of Defense and the United States Army are degrading with their latest extremism policies and rogue training programs.
This hearing will specifically address an anti-terrorism training, given for years to countless young service members at Fort Liberty that characterized pro-life organizations as “terrorist groups.” This training labeled several prominent and well-respected pro-life groups, that count millions of everyday Americans as members, as violent extremists. The training accused the members of these organizations of being threats to the safety of military installations and designated symbols of pro-life groups, including state-issued pro-life license plates, as indicators of terrorism.
This disturbing training confirmed my fears about the recent publication of Army Directive 2024-07 (Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities). This new directive would define something as simple as service members expressing support for those who refused the Covid vaccine as extremism….That is, the Army is using an overly broad policy to police the speech of conservative service members, quiet dissent, and require service members who believe in conservative ideals to hide their identities for fear of retaliation from their commands.
But the Army isn’t simply targeting conservative speech and values. At any time, the administration could weaponize this policy against any Army soldier with values different from the administration.
That is why our oversight of these trainings and policies is so urgent. The first Amendment is broad for a reason; once speech is limited, no matter how offensive or vulgar, individual freedoms are dangerously infringed upon. And that is a real threat to our democracy.
