by Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Irina Tsukerman
How does reducing Pentagon religious affiliation codes affect military religious freedom and constitutional due process?
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Irina Tsukerman about the Pentagon’s reduction of military religious-affiliation codes from more than 200 to 31, including removal of atheists, Wiccans, pagans, and Unitarian Universalists as separate choices. Tsukerman argues the issue is not mere bureaucratic streamlining, but a due-process and religious-freedom concern, warning that opaque administrative decisions can erode constitutional protections, minority recognition, and public trust in pluralistic governance within democratic civil-military institutions and American public life more broadly today.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: For Statecraft and Faultlines, I would put this in roughly the 24- to 26-week range, about half a year. A major lesson from this week involves Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statements about streamlining religious affiliation codes and chaplaincy in the U.S. military. The Department of Defense reportedly reduced the number of religious affiliation codes from more than 200 to 31. Specific categories such as Wicca, paganism, humanism, atheism, and Unitarian Universalism were removed as separate designations, although broader options such as “agnostic,” “no religion,” and “other religions” remain. That is a large reduction in the recognized affiliation categories used for chaplaincy and administrative purposes.
Some of these communities, including humanists and atheists, fought for years to gain recognition within military systems. What is the mentality behind removing these categories in one administrative action, particularly in a free society? What message does this send to the general public and to individuals within the same administration—both in terms of how it is perceived broadly and how it is perceived internally within the current elected elite?
Irina Tsukerman: It should trouble everyone. It should trouble people not because some categories should never be reviewed, but because there appears to be a lack of transparency in the process. I do not know what criteria were used to eliminate the categories that were removed. Given that the change happened quickly and with limited public explanation, there is little to prevent the administration from narrowing the remaining categories further.
This has serious First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act implications. The underlying religious exercise remains protected under law, but the government’s internal recognition and classification systems can affect how chaplaincy resources, accommodations, and institutional support are administered. The issue is constitutional, not simply administrative or political.
There can also be institutional and financial implications. Some groups seek recognition not only because their beliefs diverge from already recognized traditions, but because recognition can help establish infrastructure and legitimacy. That can be abused. There is a rational basis for reviewing categories to prevent fraud by smaller organizations seeking benefits through fake religions or cult-like structures. At the same time, individuals and communities with legitimate beliefs are entitled to a transparent and fair process before their status is changed.
I would rather tolerate some minor instances of fraudulent activity, which can be investigated and punished on a case-by-case basis, than deprive large numbers of people of recognition and access without a transparent review process or an opportunity to make their case. This issue could end up in court and perhaps even reach the Supreme Court, particularly on procedural questions: whether the review and recognition of religious categories require notice, hearings, expert consultation, and other procedural safeguards.
That may not sound exciting to many people, but without process, we do not have law. We do not have a meaningful way to enforce the First Amendment or RFRA protections in practice.
As for the message, the message is authoritarian. Any official who believes that, with one administrative decision, they can eliminate entire categories and effectively decide what counts for religious-recognition purposes—without experts, consultations, hearings, financial review, or interviews with affected individuals—embraces government by fiat. It is one person deciding what is good for everyone. It is one person effectively establishing and disestablishing categories of religion, precisely the kind of governmental overreach the Constitution was designed to guard against.
The fact that this blatant disregard for process has not received more attention shows how overwhelmed the public sphere has become by other outrageous violations of legal process and constitutional norms. Something like this has gone almost under the radar and has been nearly ignored.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a contributor to The Washington Outsider. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978–1–0692343; 978–1–0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369–6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018–7399; Online: ISSN, 2163–3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719–6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The Good Men Project, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing comprised of more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications, in more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20–0708028), and others.