5 Culture War Fights Republicans Want to Cram Into the Defense Bill

According to conservatives, the problem with the military is not the endless war, the relentless global policing, the innocent lives wrapped up in struggles of territory and greed, nor even the trillions that back it all. The problem is the military is just too woke.

Republicans have submitted hundreds of amendments to the national defense authorization bill, hoping to pass their extreme priorities into law.

It’s not yet clear when we’ll have the final list of amendments to be voted on, as Republicans are pushing the House Rules committee for more to be added for consideration.

Still, here are some of the most radical amendments Republicans have been focusing on:

Banning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

One amendment, introduced by Representatives Greg Steube and Claudia Tenney, would prohibit “the use of Federal funds for any DEI activity in the Armed Forces, National Academies, and Department of Defense (DOD).”

Apparently, it’s okay for the Supreme Court to carve out an affirmative action exception for the military, but it’s not okay to have a conversation about those recipients being treated decently.

Limiting Service Members’ Access to Abortion

Another amendment, backed by scores of Republicans, would prohibit “the Secretary of Defense from paying for or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services.” That would overturn current Defense Department policy that helps military members who are seeking abortion, but are stationed in a state where it is banned, with their travel expenses.  

What better way to affirm that soldiers are pawns for the American empire than by insistently eroding their bodily autonomy in whatever way you can?

Banning Books

Representatives Lauren Boebert, Eli Crane, Josh Brecheen, and Mary Miller wanted to ensure the whole of the far-right agenda got representation, introducing an amendment to prohibit “Department of Defense Education Activity schools from purchasing and having pornographic and radical gender ideology books in their libraries.”

Surely, a very real problem that merits even seconds on the floor of the United States Congress, as it grapples with the billions it dedicates towards policing the world.

Prohibiting Funds for Climate Change

Several other amendments focused on climate, calling to prohibit federal funds to support green energy efforts, and another outright prohibiting the Defense Department “from carrying out Biden’s climate change executive orders.”

After all, why would we even consider defining “public service” to mean serving the public who is drowning in floods, collapsing in the heat, and choking in the smog?

Restrictions on Military Aid for Ukraine, but not Saudi Arabia or Israel

And of course, Republicans found a way to target military aid for Ukraine in a way they certainly did not with Israel or Saudi Arabia.

Representative Wesley Hunt introduced an amendment to stop any funding for Ukraine “unless an equal amount is made available to the Secretary of Homeland Security for the construction of physical barriers along the southern border.” (Funny, given a separate, to-be-voted on amendment from Representative Brecheen and Representative Dale Strong “to use, transfer or donate excess border wall construction materials.”)

Meanwhile, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a slew of Ukraine-related amendments, including ones to outright ban funding for Ukraine until a “diplomatic solution” is reached, and striking $300 million of funding. She also submitted one calling for the U.S. to withdraw from NATO.

While Republicans were eager to terminate aid to a nation fighting off invasion, they were just as eager to protect another occupying nation. An amendment introduced by Representatives Scott Perry, Bob Good, and Crane would bar “funding to any organization or any country that has labeled Israel as an “apartheid” state.” A United Nations investigator accused Israel of apartheid last year.

There are plenty of issues with America’s defense spending priorities, namely, that it has always been so bloated, and so used for ill ends. And despite this historical and ongoing legacy, and despite where those trillions of dollars could go instead, the military budget has generally maintained an upward trend. Nevertheless, Republicans are introducing amendments that ignore any of those broader issues, instead projecting their radical domestic agenda onto the military.

The Ku Klux Klan has been posting flyers all over Kentucky since March, a frightening sign of how emboldened the far right is becoming.

Kentucky’s Republican attorney general Daniel Cameron, who is also his party’s nominee for governor, has not yet publicly commented on the flyers. Cameron did not respond to The New Republic’s request for comment.

The flyers first started to gain statewide attention in May, when residents of Louisville posted about it on social media. At least two different flyers were left in neighborhoods in and around the city. One warned “race traitors, mixed breeds, communist, homosexuals, and all other walks of Godless degeneracy” that the “Klan is back.” Another flyer referred to multiracial people as “mongrels” and listed Bible quotes to push anti-LGBTQ sentiment.

Things picked up in June, when residents near Lexington reported that another chapter of the KKK had distributed flyers advertising themselves as a sort of neighborhood watch. The flyers encouraged people to report “crime and drug dealers” to the KKK. Lexington NAACP President Whit Whitaker expressed concerns that the Klan intended to use these reports to attack Black people.

Two alleged Klansmen were handing out KKK recruitment cards in Corbin when they crossed paths with an LGBTQ rights rally that was protesting Kentucky’s now-blocked anti-transgender laws. The pair began shouting abuse at the crowd, and one even held up a gun.

The most recent incidents were just last week, when people in Fern Creek and Ashland found KKK flyers spread around their neighborhoods. The flyers in Ashland specifically said the group was seeking to recruit “white-American” citizens who are Christian and at least 18 years old.

The flyers are a clear sign of how brazen far-right groups have become. The Proud Boys have also begun distributing flyers around Kentucky. And it’s no surprise that such extremist organizations feel that they can come out into the open.

Former President Donald Trump vigorously embraced stances against LGBTQ people and people of color, specifically Latin American immigrants and Muslims. He famously told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during a 2020 presidential debate. Members of far-right groups felt Trump had personally called on them to go to Washington on January 6 and stop the 2020 election results from being certified.

And the vast majority of Republican leaders have done nothing to push back. Ron DeSantis—who is currently in second place for the GOP presidential nomination, after Trump—has openly embraced anti-LGBTQ bigotry in policies and in his campaigning.

California Representative Ted Lieu thoroughly debunked the Republican talking point that the FBI has been weaponized against them by pointing out the obvious: The Trump administration was already packed with “criminals.”

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He faced repeated questions from Republicans about whether the FBI targets the GOP, specifically former President Donald Trump. Wray, of course, denied their accusations.

But Lieu offered the most striking defense of the bureau when he listed how many members of Trump’s inner circle had been convicted. Lieu asked Wray about Roger Stone, Elliott Broidy, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos, all of whom were found guilty of various crimes in federal court.

Lieu pointed out that all of the advisers were prosecuted by Trump appointees: Bill Barr, Matthew Whitaker, and Jeff Sessions. Wray, who was already leading the FBI at the time, is also a Trump appointee.

“What these facts show is we don’t have a two-tiered system of justice,” said Lieu, referring to a favorite Republican talking point regarding Trump’s federal indictment. “We have one Department of Justice that goes after criminals regardless of party ideology.”

“It is not the fault of the FBI that Donald Trump surrounded himself with criminals.”

It’s a big club and still, you most certainly are not in it.

An array of high-rolling lawyers with cases before the Supreme Court paid money to one of Justice Clarence Thomas’s top aides through Venmo. The Guardian reports that these lawyers have done everything from successfully arguing against affirmative action, to leading the charge to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to, well, protect the environment.

These top lawyers appeared to be paying for exclusive access to a Christmas party hosted by the justice, according to the payment descriptions on Venmo. The former aide, Rajan Vasisht, received seven payments in November and December of 2019, The Guardian reports; each Venmo payment was listed with descriptors like “CT Christmas Party,” or “Thomas Christmas party.”

The payments could have well been for anything; none of the implicated parties responded to The Guardian’s questions or request for comments.

One of the lawyers paying the Thomas aide was Patrick Strawbridge, a partner at Consovoy McCarthy, who successfully helped overturn affirmative action. Another was Kate Todd, former White House deputy counsel under twice-impeached, twice-indicted, and liable for sexual abuse former President Donald Trump. Yet another party-going lawyer was Elbert Lin, West Virginia’s former solicitor general, who was very influential in a Supreme Court case that limited the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And that’s just a taste of who attended.

So while scores of communities in Vermont and New York succumb to catastrophic flooding, while Texans and Floridians pant and collapse in the sweltering heat, you can trust that the lawyers responsible for such conditions will still be happily toasting champagne glasses and noshing on their hors d’oeuvres.

The latest chapter of Our Corrupt Supreme Court comes in an already bursting-at-the-seams book of malfeasance.

Beyond the Venmo payments, Thomas has received secret and lavish gifts for decades from the Nazi memorabilia–collecting billionaire and GOP donor Harlan Crow, including luxurious island-hopping excursions on superyachts, tuition payments for his grandnephew’s private schooling, and even a secret deal in which Crow bought Thomas family property and proceeded to upgrade it while Thomas’s mother still lived in it.

Justice Neil Gorsuch successfully sold a 40-acre property he had been trying to sell for two years to an undisclosed buyer; the buyer of the nearly $2 million Colorado ranch was the CEO of a law firm that has since had 22 cases with business before the court.

Justice John Roberts’s wife has allegedly been paid more than $10 million by an array of high-class law firms—at least one of which has argued before her husband in the Supreme Court.

And that all—normalized corruption, to more outward displays of it—doesn’t even include other issues, like Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh being alleged sexual abusers.

Iowa Republicans passed a bill banning abortion after six weeks, an extreme move that could tip the state for Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election.

State lawmakers passed the bill in the dead of night Tuesday, pushing it through the Senate with a vote of 32–17 after a day of massive protests in the state Capitol. The measure now heads to the desk of Governor Kim Reynolds, who will likely sign it, despite the widespread opposition.

Iowa currently allows abortion up to 20 weeks, and the majority of state residents—61 percent—support access to the procedure. A six-week abortion ban would target people before they even know they are pregnant, and make Iowa one of the most extreme anti-abortion states in the country.

Republican Governor Kim Reynolds had signed a six-week abortion ban in 2018, but that measure was struck down the following year in the courts. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, Reynolds asked the courts to reinstate the 2018 ban, but the state Supreme Court was deadlocked on the issue, leaving the 20-week law in place.

So last week, Reynolds summoned the state legislature back for a special session with “the sole and single purpose” of passing a six-week ban. The bill includes an exception for rape only if the rape is “reported within forty-five days of the incident to a law enforcement agency or to a public or private health agency.”

Huge crowds packed the state Capitol building on Tuesday to protest against the bill. Many suspect that Reynolds is vying for a vice presidential nod—and one constituent called her out while testifying against the measure for using the abortion ban to “score political points.”

But as Iowa Republicans celebrate taking away bodily autonomy from their constituents, they may have rung their own death knell. Biden won 44.9 percent of Iowa votes in 2020, compared to Donald Trump’s 53.1 percent. But the new abortion bill could tip the scale in the other direction.

The GOP may not want to admit it, but abortion wins elections. An overwhelming majority of Americans—62 percent, to be exact—still think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center. What’s more, people consistently vote in favor of increasing abortion rights protections. Come 2024, Republicans may learn that the hard way.

Donald Trump just lost another big fight in his ongoing legal troubles.

The Justice Department said Tuesday that it no longer considers Trump immune in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit against him.

Trump was unanimously found liable in May for sexual abuse and battery against Carroll in the mid-1990s, and for defaming her while denying the assault. He was ordered to pay her about $5 million in damages. But Carroll also has a second, pending defamation case against Trump, which dates back to 2019 and includes comments he made about her while in office. The Justice Department had previously said Trump was acting in his role as president when he made the comments, meaning he was immune from legal action.

But now, “the Department of Justice is declining to certify … that defendant Donald J. Trump was acting within the scope of his office and employment as President of the United States when he made the statements that form the basis of the defamation claims in plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in this action,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said Tuesday.

This means that if Trump is found guilty of defamation, he will be responsible for any potential damages awarded to Carroll. She is seeking $10 million in damages in her second defamation case against him.

Boyton cited a recent legal challenge over whether the initial certification of immunity was valid. The case moved between New York and Washington, D.C., and produced no clear result. In a letter to presiding Judge Lewis Kaplan and Trump’s legal team, Boynton explained that the Department “lacks adequate evidence to conclude” that Trump was motivated by a “purpose to serve the United States Government” when he denied assaulting Carroll and made the allegedly defamatory statements about her.

Carroll’s lawyer Robbie Kaplan (no relation to the judge) hailed the Justice Department’s decision. “We have always believed that Donald Trump made his defamatory statements about our client in June 2019 out of personal animus, ill will, and spite, and not as President of the United States,” she said in a statement. “Now that one of the last obstacles has been removed, we look forward to trial in E. Jean Carroll’s original case in January 2024.”

Carroll accused Trump in her 2019 memoir of raping her in the Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s. She initially sued him twice for defamation: first in 2019, when he said she made up the rape allegation to promote her book, and again in November for posts he made about her on social media. Carroll is not the only woman to accuse Trump of sexual assault, but her case was the first to make it to a courtroom.

Trump continues to vehemently deny all of the allegations and launched fresh vitriol at Carroll during a disastrous CNN town hall in May. She amended her second lawsuit to include those comments.

Trump and his allies have repeatedly tried to thwart Carroll’s various lawsuits, asking multiple times that the 2019 defamation suit be thrown out, and even begging for a new trial altogether.

Meanwhile, he is facing two criminal indictments, and a third that may be coming later this summer.

Safe to say this situation has just gone from bad to worse.

Hundreds of people gathered Tuesday at the Iowa state Capitol to protest a bill that would ban abortion after six weeks, targeting people before they even know they are pregnant.

Iowa currently allows abortion up to 20 weeks, and the majority of state residents—61 percent—support access to the procedure. Republican Governor Kim Reynolds had signed a six-week abortion ban in 2018, but that measure was struck down the following year in the courts. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, Reynolds asked the courts to reinstate the 2018 ban, but the state Supreme Court was deadlocked on the issue, leaving the 20-week law in place.

So last week, Reynolds summoned the state legislature back for a special session with “the sole and single purpose” of passing legislation that would ban abortion once a “fetal heartbeat” can be detected. Medical professionals warn that the term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading because six-week-old fetuses only have electrical pulses. There isn’t actually a heart yet, just clusters of cells.

Many suspect that Reynolds is vying for a vice presidential nod—and a constituent called her out on Tuesday for using the abortion ban to “score political points.”

Massive crowds packed the Capitol in Des Moines as lawmakers debated the legislation.

The chants of “Shame!” and “Hey hey! Ho ho! Abortion bans have got to go!” were so loud they could be heard inside the chamber.

Lawmakers are expected to continue debating into the night, and could even vote on the measure at that time. The bill Reynolds is pushing includes an exception for rape, but only if the rape is “reported within forty-five days of the incident to a law enforcement agency or to a public or private health agency.”

Despite widespread public opposition, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly used special exceptions to force through abortion bans. In South Carolina, Governor Henry McMaster also called lawmakers back for a special session to pass an abortion ban, and then signed the measure into law with no warning to doctors. A judge blocked the measure in May while lawsuits against it play out.

An owner of a Michigan hair salon says the business will begin discriminating against LGBTQ people—just days after the Supreme Court legalizing discrimination against the community.

Christine Geiger, the owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab in Traverse City, said she is exercising her right to free speech by discriminating against specific customers.

“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,” Geiger wrote in a Facebook post. “You are not welcome at this salon. Period.”

While the salon’s Facebook page has been deleted and its Instagram profile has been set to private, that should not be mistaken as any remorse. The business’s Instagram biography reads: “A private CONSERVATIVE business that does not cater to woke ideologies.”

In a comment in a community Facebook group, Geiger elaborated. “I have no issue with LGB. It’s the TQ+ that I’m not going to support,” she began. “For those that don’t know what the + is for, it’s for MAP (Minor Attracted Person aka: pedophile),” she continued, lying. Scores of other community members responded, noting that she was downright wrong.

And while Geiger has said she is “not a slave to any narrative” but simply looking to make a stance on the issue, she has not responded to any of the individuals calling out her ethical reasoning or factual premises. Nor is she apparently bold enough to keep her social media pages public, despite claiming to be “more than willing to take the first rounds of strike backs” to galvanize others to “bark back” (an interesting choice of words while calling LGBTQ people animals who should go to pet groomers).

Notably, Geiger’s position spoke directly to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the First Amendment trumps civil rights, and discrimination is okay if your values say the other person is “illegitimate.”

“I am admitting that since I am not willing to play the pronoun game or cater to requests outside of what I perceive as normal this probably isn’t the best option for that type of client,” Geiger wrote.

The announcement also followed easily re-elected Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signing legislation in March that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

While Geiger purports to have concern over the safety of children and stability of society, she herself has in the past actually and repeatedly flouted those concerns. In 2009, for instance, the hair salon owner was charged with third-offense drunken driving and second-offense operating a vehicle with a suspended license; records had shown her driving drunk twice the previous year. In 2021, 13,384 people died in drunk driving-related incidents. No one has died as a result of an LGBTQ person getting a haircut.

After significant media scrutiny, Senator Tommy Tuberville has acknowledged the connection between white nationalism and racism.

“White nationalists are racists,” Tuberville told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday afternoon. Although this may appear to be a simple admission, as white nationalists by definition believe that white people are inherently superior, Tuberville had struggled to reach this conclusion.

The Republican from Alabama told CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins on Monday that white nationalism “is just a name that’s been given,” appearing to conflate white supremacist beliefs with simply being white. When Collins informed Tuberville that “a white nationalist is a racist,” Tuberville replied: “Well, that’s your opinion.”

On Tuesday morning, Tuberville said “I’m totally against racism,” but indicated that he did not see the connection between white nationalism and racism.

“If Democrats want to say that white nationalists are racist, I’m totally against that too,” Tuberville told ABC News’ Rachel Scott. When Scott pressed him on whether he believed white nationalists are racist, Tuberville responded: “Yes, if that’s what a racist is, yes.”

On Tuesday, Democrats slammed Tuberville for his comments, with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calling on the Alabama Republican to apologize. “No, he needs to apologize,” Tuberville responded.

Senator Raphael Warnock also called on Tuberville to apologize and “change course.” He told reporters: “White nationalism is racism, by definition. It’s not a matter of opinion. And for the senator to play games with this is dangerous.”

Meanwhile, other Republican senators reiterated that they think racism and white nationalism are bad.

“White supremacy and racism have absolutely no place in our country, period,” Senator Katie Britt, Tuberville’s colleague from Alabama, told reporters. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that “white supremacy is simply unacceptable in our military and in our entire country.”

This was not Tuberville’s first time obscuring the connection between white nationalism and racism. In May, he said that he believed white nationalists should not be prevented from serving in the military.

“I call them Americans,” Tuberville said then, arguing that military readiness in the U.S. was lacking because “Democrats are attacking our military, saying we need to get out the white extremists, the white nationalists, people that don’t believe in our agenda.”

Senator Tommy Tuberville can’t—or won’t—wrap his mind around the fact that white nationalism is inherently racist.

The Alabama Republican has insisted multiple times in recent months, including twice in the past 24 hours, that while racism is bad, white nationalists are not racist. The Southern Poverty Law Center defines white nationalists as groups that “espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhite persons. Their primary goal is to create a white ethnostate.” So it’s pretty clearly an ideology based on racism.

White nationalist “is just a name that’s been given,” Tuberville told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Monday night, seemingly intentionally conflating being white and being a white nationalist. “So if you’re going to do away with most white people in this country out of the military, we’ve got huge problems.”

People have different beliefs, and “if racism is one of those beliefs, I am totally against it,” Tuberville said.

When Collins told him that that was what white nationalism entailed, Tuberville said, “Well, that’s your opinion.”

When ABC reporter Rachel Scott pressed him on the matter Tuesday morning, Tuberville doubled down, insisting the racism element was simply one definition of white nationalism, but not the definition.

Even more frightening than Tuberville’s seemingly deliberate obtuseness, though, is why he is defending white nationalists: He believes they should be allowed to serve in the military. In May, the senator said white nationalists should be allowed in the U.S. military because blocking any ideological group from serving would weaken the institution. Tuberville also referred to the military as a “strong, hard-nosed, killing machine,” which could possibly explain why he thinks extremists belong in the armed forces.

But if we’re talking about a weakened military, Tuberville should look in the mirror. Marine Corps Commandant David Berger stepped down Monday, leaving the corps leaderless for the first time in more than a century. His replacement has been nominated but not yet confirmed because Tuberville has blocked hundreds of military promotions since March in objection to the Defense Department’s abortion policy. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has warned Tuberville’s blockade “harms America’s national security” and poses a “clear risk” to the military’s readiness.