Congress created the “woke” military. Now it has the responsibility to return the Armed Forces to its mission of defense instead of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump railed against the “woke” military and promised to refocus the armed forces on merit and combat effectiveness. Upon his inauguration and the confirmation of Pete Hegseth as secretary of Defense, the president began disassembling the military’s DEI bureaucracy through executive orders.

But executive orders cannot nullify acts of Congress. Only Congress can eliminate positions, programs, and policies specifically created by Congress, the branch of government with the constitutional authority to “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.”

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2026, on the calendar for consideration this week, presents what could be the last opportunity for Congress to restore merit and eliminate divisive, destructive, and demoralizing policies that elevate race and gender quotas over military effectiveness.

Will Congress Act?

The short answer is no, if the draft version of the 2026 NDAA that has emerged from the respective Armed Services committees is enacted without amendments. Neither the Senate nor the House versions address the meritocracy issue. Congressional silence sends the message that Congress does not consider ending DEI and establishing a merit-based military personnel system important. That message will be heard loudly and clearly by those in the Pentagon bureaucracy who have embraced the DEI philosophy.

Maybe the current administration can keep its finger in the dike for the next three years. But without legislative action a new administration can reestablish the DEI priorities with the stroke of a pen. Diversity will once again become a “strategic imperative.”

Instead, members of Congress should end the “diversity is our strength” mantra once and for all by writing legislation that follows four simple principles, outlined below.

Require Merit

First, Congress must specify that all military personnel actions, from recruitment and accessions, to assignments, promotions, and separations must be based solely on merit. Unless Congress affirmatively imposes a merit requirement, the imbedded DEI culture that has permeated the Pentagon for years will worm its way back into personnel policy. Current leadership may vigorously resist these subversive tactics, but leaders change. The effectiveness of the military cannot be based solely on the good intentions of any single individual or executive action.

Forbid Favoritism and Discrimination

Second, after imposing a statutorily mandated merit requirement, Congress must specifically forbid the use of racial and gender preferences in all military personnel actions. Unless Congress tells the Department of Defense (DOD) by statute that it cannot grant racial and gender preferences to “balance” demographic makeup of the force, the DEI bureaucracy will look for ways to continue advancing its discriminatory goals.

By forbidding the use of race and gender in personnel actions, Congress will return the military to the historical goal of equal opportunity envisioned by President Harry Truman in integrating the military and President John F. Kennedy’s efforts to end racial discrimination in the armed forces. Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, will motivate the best and brightest to achieve their potential.

Provide Reasonable Accommodations

Third, Congress must consider the realities on the ground when developing policies that work effectively in the complicated and dangerous world in which we live. For example, a covert mission in an African nation with an overwhelmingly black population requires American soldiers who can blend in. Considering the race of the special operators, along with their military skills, is appropriate, expected, and required for mission success.

Similarly, Congress must consider and respect reasonable accommodations for sex differences. Men and women may be fungible in their ability to pilot a drone, but they are different in ways that warrant respect and consideration in other settings. Insofar as the operational environment permits, privacy expectations of men and women in their respective personal spaces must be respected. Reasonable accommodations of those differences are important.

The same can be said for accommodating certain religious beliefs. If a faith-based college or university hosting an ROTC program requires its faculty members to be members of the sponsoring faith group, assignment of active-duty ROTC instructors should conform to those expectations.

Define Key Terms

Last, but certainly not least, Congress must define key terms to preclude entrenched bureaucrats from manipulating definitions to hinder the policy goals of the legislation. If Congress fails to define the key terms, DOD bureaucrats will create their own definitions that may defeat the purpose of the legislation.

For example, “sex” must be defined based on biological reality and not include subjective notions like “gender identity” or “gender expression.”

“Merit” must be defined to encompass only objective, measurable, and recognizable accomplishments, qualifications, and skills. The definition must exclude vague, amorphous, and unrelated concepts that could be used to subvert legislative policy goals.

Congress Created the Problem

The Pentagon’s diversity and inclusion bureaucracy was born with the 2009 NDAA, which created the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, with a mandate to “conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior officers.”

In 2020, Congress created a “chief diversity officer” for the DOD with the responsibility of overseeing and implementing diversity and inclusion goals.

With the 2026 NDAA, Congress must undo such legislation and restore merit to our military.

William Woodruff is a professor of law emeritus and a retired Army lawyer. As an Army lawyer, he served as chief of the litigation division and was responsible for defending the Army’s interests in civil litigation involving Army policies, programs, and operations.