The blueprint for preparing America's Armed Forces to dominate the rest of the 21st century.
DEI is dying. Now is the time to push beyond woke and rethink America’s military culture from top to bottom. That means instilling merit over “inclusivity,” retooling equipment supply chains to put America first, and rewarding the warrior ethos from the enlisted ranks to officers and our elite service academies.
Here’s the blueprint for restoring the military America needs—and deserves.
Proposed Additions to the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is Congress’ annual blueprint for setting military priorities, controlling how the U.S. Defense Department’s funds are spent, and ensuring accountability in the Armed Forces.
The NDAA doesn’t appropriate funds; instead it sets funding priorities for the Department of Defense to pursue—from force structure and personnel management, to modernization programs, nuclear posture, and national security challenges. It touches every part of military life and culture, including servicemember pay, authorizing new weapons programs, cybersecurity frameworks, military construction, foreign military sales, and institutional reforms.
It’s a critical tool for gutting the woke agenda and onshoring military equipment production to reduce overseas reliance. Fixing things here is an important first step toward re-warriorizing the services. Here’s a simple overview of the annual timeline for approving the NDAA and how the process works.
Legislative Timeline Overview
January–March, Internal Development: House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC, SASC) hold hearings with defense officials, industry leaders, and think tanks. Subcommittees review existing programs and potential legislative needs (e.g. Tactical Air and Land Forces, Strategic Forces).
April–May, Subcommittee Markup: Subcommittees draft different portions of the initial NDAA text, a process called “markup” that includes proposed legislation covering acquisitions, end strength, readiness, cyber policy, and more. After markup, subcommittees vote to advance each portion to the complete NDAA draft text.
May–June, Full Committee Markup: The HASC and SASC each consolidate and vote on their respective NDAA bills, adding amendments as needed (often in marathon sessions). Once approved, the committees report their version of the NDAA to the House and Senate floor, respectively.
June–July, Floor Consideration: The House and Senate consider their respective versions of the NDAA as a body. Members may debate and propose additional amendments during this time, after which each chamber votes to pass its respective version.
August–October, Conference Committee: A bipartisan conference committee reconciles the different House and Senate versions of the draft NDAA text into a single, final iteration. Committee members, called “conferees,” negotiate funding levels, policy disagreements, and proposed amendments. The final result is a unified “conference report.”
November–December, Final Passage and President’s Signature: The House and Senate each vote on the NDAA conference report, which if passed is sent to the President for his signature. The The NDAA has passed every year since 1961—making it a key bipartisan fixture of U.S. military policy.
Defense Department Implementation Overview
Interpretation and Guidance: After the President signs the NDAA into law, the Joint Staff, service secretariats, and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) each review it. OSD issues implementation guidance memoranda to clarify congressional intent and direct service-level compliance.
Programmatic Adjustments: Budget offices realign programmed funds and acquisition plans to reflect authorized NDAA changes, pausing or terminating programs unfunded or constrained by the new NDAA. New programs, such as hypersonic missile or AI research, are started up after NDAA authorization.
Policy Changes and Directives: Reforms governing DEI, personnel, education, or force structure (e.g. end strength cuts or changes to officer promotion policy) trigger updates to service policies and Department of Defense Instructions (known as “DoDI’s”). The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness typically leads these changes.
Congressional Reporting Requirements: The NDAA typically includes dozens of reporting mandates: Assessments, briefings, and strategies due to Congress within fixed timeline (e.g. “180 days after enactment”). Legislative Affairs and OSD Policy officers coordinate delivery of and compliance with these provisions.
Operational Adjustments: Combatant commands, via Joint Staff coordination, respond to NDAA-driven changes in posture, basing authorities, or security cooperation limitations. NDAA provisions on Taiwan, Ukraine, or AUKUS-related interoperability would trigger specific execution tasks by INDOPACOM or EUCOM, for example.
Acquisition and Industrial Base Execution: The Defense Acquisition System integrates NDAA direction into existing procurement timelines, which may require contract amendments or new solicitations to meet “Buy American” mandates, funding caps, or other changes in multi-year industry procurement authorization.
Oversight and Feedback: The Defense Department provides quarterly or semiannual updates to congressional defense committees, as mandated by the NDAA. The Defense Department Inspector General and Government Accountability Office (GAO) may conduct reviews of NDAA implementation effectiveness. Congress continues ongoing oversight through follow-on hearings, posture statements, and supplemental budget requests.
As part of our effort to re-warriorize America’s Armed Forces, we propose six pillars for the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act that together restore focus on our military’s fighting culture.
Replacing DEI With Merit
America’s military is the most diverse organization in the world, encouraging people of all backgrounds to be the best they can be. The recent emphasis on “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) torpedoes that objective by pitting servicemen against one another based on race, sex, and sexuality—destroying unit cohesion, morale, trust, and military effectiveness. We need to end identity politics in the Armed Forces and get back to evaluating based on individual merit and effectiveness in the line of duty.
Objective: Clear, uniform, enforceable standards and accountability to ensure integrity and effective leadership across all roles in every service.
Legislative Recommendations:
“No individual within the Department of Defense shall be evaluated, promoted, funded, or admitted based on race, sex, gender, ethnicity, or any other identity-based criteria.”
“Any policy, regulation, or personnel action violating Title VI standards shall constitute a punishable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
Restoring High Combat Fitness Standards
Exceedingly low fitness standards mean our soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, and guardians aren’t being challenged like they should. While China maintains sky-high requirements for its soldiers, the Pentagon has lowered requirements almost across the board—and it’s left us vulnerable in the next war. Soldiering is a physically demanding job, so fitness standards must reflect operational realities. Gender-adjusted standards reduce combat readiness and promote divisions within the services, threatening our ability to win the next war. Instilling sex-neutral standards is just the start; the goal should be to make every serviceman a warrior fit for combat. Those who pass are worthy of crossing the Line of Departure (LD), the geographical line on a battle plan past which enemy contact is inevitable.
Objective: Institutionalize uniform fitness standards for service members to ensure required job obligations can be fulfilled. Restore fitness standards that were lowered to accommodate women. Those who fail the test lose LD status for a year and are reassigned to a non-combat role. Return to all-male frontline units.
Legislative Recommendations:
“All military branches shall uniformly apply sex-neutral physical fitness standards aligned exclusively with validated operational requirements. The Secretary of Defense shall provide annual certification to Congress confirming that all physical fitness standards remain strictly sex-neutral and operationally validated.”
“The Department of Defense shall conduct an extensive assessment of the readiness, cohesion, and cultural impacts resulting from integrating women into combat roles, with comprehensive findings submitted to Congress.”
Cementing an Elite Warrior Ethos
Just as there’s a clear dividing line between civilians and warfighters, there’s a dividing line within the military between true warriors and warrior support. The Armed Forces looks too much like corporate America with different uniforms; that needs to change, and fast. Those men who score in the top 25% quartile of the revised combat fitness standard deserve a 25% pay raise and special uniform designation. They should look, feel, and act like the elite warriors they are—because America relies on their discipline and devotion on the battlefield. The result will be a force unparalleled in its fighting spirit—and an end to failed recruiting drives.
Objective: Encourage and reward a strong warfighting culture across every service that enshrines lethality and morality as our military’s chief virtues.
Legislative Recommendations:
“The Department of Defense shall implement significantly enhanced fitness standards for elite frontline operators, clearly defining and incentivizing an operational warrior class.”
“Elite combat veterans shall be formally recognized as a protected class, granting them priority access to federal employment, Veterans Affairs benefits, and educational opportunities.”
Proposed Revision: Prohibition of Religious Grooming Accommodations in Combat Arms Roles
Section 1. Findings and Purpose
(a) Findings: Congress finds that uniform grooming standards are essential for operational effectiveness, safety, and cohesion within the United States Armed Forces. In combat arms roles, adherence to these standards is critical for proper use of personal protective equipment, unit discipline, and mission success.
(b) Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit the approval of religious accommodations that violate military grooming standards for personnel assigned to combat arms roles, thereby ensuring combat effectiveness and the integrity of frontline units.
Section 2. Amendment to Title 10, United States Code
(a) Insertion of New Subsection: Chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting the following new section:
Ҥ 1030. Prohibition on Religious Grooming Accommodations in Combat Arms Roles
(a) In General.—The Department of Defense shall not approve or maintain religious accommodations that result in a deviation from established grooming standards, including those governing hair length, beard length, facial hair, and uniform headgear, for any service member assigned to a combat arms role or any role involving direct engagement in combat operations.
(b) Operational Integrity. —This subsection is necessary to preserve safety, uniformity, equipment compatibility, and unit discipline, particularly with respect to personal protective gear and battlefield hygiene requirements.
(c) Non-Applicability. —This subsection shall not apply to non-combat roles that are not engaged in direct combat or operational support, as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
(d) Definitions. —In this section: (1) ‘Combat arms role’ means a military occupational specialty directly involved in frontline combat operations, including infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers, and special operations roles, or as designated by the Secretary of Defense. (2) ‘Grooming standards’ means uniform regulations established by the respective branches of the Armed Forces regarding personal appearance. (3) ‘Religious accommodation’ means an exemption from uniform grooming standards granted for the purpose of religious expression.”
Section 3. Implementation and Oversight
(a) Within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall issue implementation guidance and ensure compliance across all branches of the Armed Forces.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit an annual compliance report to the congressional defense committees, detailing adherence to this policy and any exceptions granted, along with justification.
Section 4. Severability
If any provision of this amendment or the application of any provision is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.
Section 5. Effective Date
This amendment shall take effect upon enactment and shall apply to all personnel assignments made after that date.
Reforming the Service Academies
America’s elite service academies are not Ivy League schools… and they should stop trying to be. While academic achievement remains rigorous, West Point and the other academies have lost sight of their founding purpose: To forge officers fit for command, whether it’s leading troops into battle or providing support for America’s warriors. Woke priorities have replaced good leadership while an overemphasis on scholarship—valuable for producing well-rounded cadets—has left physical fitness standards by the wayside. That’s been exacerbated by the glut of civilian educators who have entered these academies without military experience. If America is going to be defended by the best of the best, she needs officers worthy of leading her elite warfighters into the fight.
Objective: Abolish far-left curricula, fire civilian educators, and return focus to producing elite, combat-capable leaders well-versed in military history and affairs.
Legislative Recommendations:
“The Department of Defense shall implement a pilot postgraduate commissioning program focused exclusively on advanced tactical proficiency, leadership, and superior physical fitness.”
“Service Academies shall staff instructional positions exclusively with uniformed or retired military personnel, allowing exceptions solely in critical specialized technical disciplines.”
“The Department of Social Sciences at West Point shall be disbanded, reallocating critical subjects into departments directly overseen by military leadership focused explicitly on strategic studies and leadership.”
Proposed Revision: Codify Merit-Based Admissions at U.S. Military Service Academies
Section 1. Purpose and Findings
(a) Findings: Congress recognizes that the United States Military Service Academies—comprising the United States Military Academy (USMA), the United States Naval Academy (USNA), and the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA)—exist fundamentally to prepare highly educated and qualified leaders dedicated to leading America’s armed forces in combat. Merit-based selection ensures optimal leadership quality, essential for mission success, troop morale, and battlefield effectiveness.
(b) Purpose: To eliminate race-based admissions practices and restore strict adherence to meritocratic and constitutionally mandated equal protection principles, ensuring the selection of the best-qualified candidates irrespective of race, ethnicity, or national origin.
Section 2. Merit-Based Admissions Policy
(a) General Policy: The United States Military Service Academies shall not consider race, ethnicity, national origin, or any other identity-based criteria, directly or indirectly, when evaluating candidates or selecting qualified candidates for admission.
(b) Preparatory School Admissions: Admission to the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School (USMAPS), Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS), and U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School shall similarly adhere strictly to merit-based, race-neutral practices.
Section 3. Definitions
(a) United States Military Service Academies: Refers collectively to the United States Military Academy (USMA), United States Naval Academy (USNA), and United States Air Force Academy (USAFA).
(b) Candidate: Any individual who formally submits an application for admission to one or more of the Academies.
(c) Qualified Candidate: A candidate determined by the respective Academy’s Admissions department to meet all eligibility criteria and minimum qualifications required for admission.
(d) Preparatory Schools: Refers to the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School (USMAPS), Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS), and U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School.
Section 4. Implementation and Enforcement
(a) Directives to Service Branches: Within 30 days of enactment, the Secretary of Defense shall issue directives to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force mandating full compliance with this policy.
(b) Compliance Certification: The Secretary of Defense shall annually certify to Congress that all admissions practices at the Academies and their preparatory schools strictly comply with merit-based, race-neutral requirements established herein.
Section 5. Severability
If any provision of this Act or its application to any individual or circumstance is declared invalid, the remainder of the Act and its applicability to other individuals and circumstances shall remain unaffected.
Section 6. Effective Date
This Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.
Reorganizing Joint Staff
The Joint Staff was organized to support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in serving as the principal military advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council. In recent years, the Joint Staff has become overly bureaucratic and bloated, compromising its essential function to provide strategic guidance, operational planning, and coordination across the Armed Forces. It should be physically separated from the rest of the Pentagon, smaller, and focused on policy counsel. Reform is crucial to ensuring this body meets national defense objectives.
Objective: Reduce redundant functions and personnel, relocate the Joint Staff to an independent facility, and expand congressional oversight.
Legislative Recommendations:
“The Joint Staff shall strictly adhere to statutory duties defined in 10 U.S.C. § 155, eliminating redundant functions overlapping with service branches and OSD.”
“The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act shall be amended to remove mandatory joint billet requirements for promotion eligibility to general or flag officer ranks.”
“Personnel performing non-operational roles on the Joint Staff shall be reassigned to OSD, and statutory personnel limits in 10 U.S.C. § 143 shall be adjusted accordingly.”
“Relocate the Joint Staff to an independent facility, ensuring strategic autonomy and operational effectiveness.”
“Establish a bipartisan congressional commission to comprehensively review and propose necessary updates to the Goldwater-Nichols Act.”
Establishing the Strategic Equipment Reserve
America must be bristling with enough weapons, ammunition, and other equipment to fight two major wars simultaneously. Yet currently we don’t have enough to fight just one. Overseas commitments have drained us of crucial supplies—such as long-range precision missiles, anti-tank missiles, and 155mm artillery shells—without the industrial capability to replace them. In contrast, China has steadily expanded its wartime manufacturing base in preparation for conflict with the United States. Worse, we are dependent on countless overseas suppliers—many in China—to produce high-tech weapons systems, vehicles, and aircraft. America is also lagging behind our rivals in crucial technologies, such as deadly First Person View (FPV) drones that will dominate near-future battlefields. Fixing this will be challenging, but it’s the only way to ensure total self-reliance and swift replenishment in times of war.
Objective: A national Strategic Equipment Reserve stocked with enough supplies and equipment to fight two major wars simultaneously for one year. A requirement that absolutely every component used in any U.S. military weapon, vehicle, or weapons system be manufactured domestically. No potential enemy must be involved in producing our military equipment whatsoever.
Legislative Recommendations:
“The Department of Defense shall maintain strategic reserves sufficient for one year of sustained combat in two major simultaneous conflicts, including comprehensive stockpiles of FPV drones, loitering munitions, 155mm artillery shells, rocket artillery systems, cruise missiles, guided bombs, anti-tank missiles, surface-to-air missiles, precision-guided munitions, small arms ammunition, mortar rounds, naval strike missiles, torpedoes, aerial bombs, and additional critical munitions. Utilization from these reserves must be reported immediately to Congress.
Proposed Revision: Domestic Manufacturing Incentive for Critical Defense Components
(a) Purpose: To strengthen national defense capabilities by expanding domestic manufacturing of critical components essential for defense systems, thereby reducing reliance on foreign suppliers and ensuring secure supply chains.
(b) Policy: The Department of Defense shall prioritize the procurement of domestically manufactured critical defense components and establish programs that: (1) Provide financial incentives, including grants or contracts, to U.S.-based manufacturers producing components such as semiconductors, composite materials, propulsion systems, and high-grade alloys. (2) Facilitate public-private partnerships to accelerate innovation and capacity building in strategic industrial sectors. (3) Designate certain components as “critical defense materials” and require that they be sourced exclusively from domestic producers unless a national security waiver is granted by the Secretary of Defense.
(c) Reporting: The Secretary of Defense shall provide an annual report to the congressional defense committees identifying progress in domestic sourcing of critical components and listing any waivers issued under subsection (b)(3).
Section 5. Severability
If any provision of this amendment or the application of any provision is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.
Section 6. Effective Date
This amendment shall take effect upon enactment and shall apply to all personnel assignments and procurement decisions made after that date.
About our Founder:
Doug Truax is a West Point graduate, former 4ᵗʰ Infantry Division Army Captain, Ranger, and successful entrepreneur. He is the volunteer, unpaid founder and CEO of Restoration of America (501c4), Restoration PAC (527), and the Foundation for the Restoration of America (501c3).
RestoretheMilitary.com is a project of
FFROA and Restoration News