The Air Force's Black DEI Myths

This is an excerpt from the chapter entitled "True Unity is Built on Ignoring Each Others Differences":

Taking everything from Medal of Honor recipients to Jackie Robinson’s participation in the military and stamping “DEI” on it is a disgusting affront to the heritage of African Americans. When I say simmering, I am specifically referring to the responses to these affronts to blacks I see in emails, text messages, and social media from active and retired black military members. Many black men and women in uniform are openly wary of expressing their anger over these issues, and rightfully so. If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs can be fired for something he said at the height of the George Floyd crisis in 2020, who else is safe?

How many white commanders haven’t the faintest idea of these affronts or why black Airmen may be offended by them? How many white military and civilian leaders are blissfully unaware of these mounting areas of tension within the ranks of African Americans?

When I thought of what kind of action might trigger an explosion or take these simmering resentments to the boiling point? My first thought was the use of federal troops against peaceful demonstrators. In the 1970s, the Defense Department had considered increasing the number of blacks in the National Guard to help quell riots: 

“The urban riots dramatically revealed that at least one major recommendation of the Gesell Committee remained to be carried out. The National Guard units that helped restore order at Watts, in Detroit, and elsewhere were almost exclusively white, a characteristic guaranteed to feed the alienation felt by urban blacks…Other observers added that many Air National Guard units…tended to reflect the racial composition of the area where they were recruited, and that young blacks would have nothing to do with a military force that might be called upon to invade the ghetto and take action against members of their race.” (Nalty, 1986, p. 298)

“Despite the lack of black officers, a decade earlier this degree of participation by blacks in the reserve and particularly in the National Guard would have triggered official rejoicing. Ten years of domestic tranquility had intervened, however, and having black National Guardsmen available to suppress black urban rioters no longer seemed so important.” (Nalty, 1986, p. 350)

During President Trump’s first term, he considered using federal troops against  protesters:

“Trump’s Threat to Use the Military Against Protesters:

What to Know

What’s happening?

The killing of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white police officer in Minneapolis, has sparked the largest U.S. protests in decades and calls for an end to systemic racism. In some instances, demonstrations have been accompanied by acts of looting and violence. Nearly two dozen states have called up their National Guard troops, and many cities have imposed curfews.

President Trump says he is prepared to deploy U.S. military personnel—trained and equipped, for the most part, to defend against foreign threats—as domestic law enforcement. ‘If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,’ Trump said earlier this week.”  (Masters, 2020)

Now, in his second term, President Trump has a Secretary of Defense who doesn’t have the leadership experience, military expertise, or perhaps even willingness to advise him against using military force, even active duty members, against protesters.

“The Trump/Hegseth Military Versus Protesters in the US

Doug Noble

It might be a dangerous time to be a protester in the US, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth serving under President Trump. Trump is eager to use the military against civilian protests, which was stymied during his first term by two things: its illegality under the Posse Comitatus Act, which traditionally bars federal troops from civilian law enforcement; and the repeated objections of military leadership.

When massive demonstrations erupted around the country, protesting the May 25, 2020, murder of George Floyd, then-President Trump succeeded in illegally deploying thousands of National Guard troops to Washington. To use them against the protest, Trump told his Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley that he wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act that allows the president to identify a dangerous protest as an ‘insurrection.’

This would permit the president (ironically, later the indicted Insurrectionist in Chief) to use the military for civilian law enforcement. But Esper and Milley refused to allow this, and Esper later recounted his refusal when Trump had asked him if the military could ‘just shoot [protesters]…in the legs or something’ in response to a demonstration. A similar refusal was issued in a June 5, 2020, statement by 89 former defense officials, which called on Trump to desist in any plans to use active-duty military personnel to control civilians.

So Trump, in his first term, was prevented from rushing the military to quell protesters due to the guardrails in place by his own lawful military and defense leadership. Trump later expressed his regret about this, insisting at a rally, ‘The next time, I’m not waiting.’

Enter Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s Defense Secretary nominee, offering Trump a second chance at carnage. He has said,  ‘When President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense.’ Not surprisingly, Hegseth declined during his Senate confirmation hearing to say whether he’d follow a Trump order to shoot at demonstrators. His refusal was taken by Senators to mean he would indeed follow such an order to shoot. This means the guardrails are now down, and Trump’s intent to use military force against protesters is no longer contained.

Even more frightening still is that Hegseth will not only fail to contain the use of the military against civilian protests. In his writings he makes clear that he, as defense secretary, intends to proactively swivel the US military’s target away from foreign enemies to the ‘enemy within,’ by which he makes clear is the left in all its forms.” (Noble, 2025)