How the Pentagon Rewrote DADT

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


When the Pentagon announced last week that it will relax its “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” rules on gays in the military, the move was applauded by gay rights advocates as a first step toward repealing the policy altogether. Mother Jones has obtained a copy of the revised rules which shows exactly how the policy has been tweaked.

The new rules, announced last week by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, are intended to make it more difficult for military service members to be discharged for being gay. Gates mentioned some of the key revisions to the rules, such as greater restrictions on the evidence that can be used to dismiss gay service members. Only high-ranking officers will have the authority to launch investigations or decide that a discharge is necessary.

The document provides more detail about the changes, including revisions that Gates didn’t focus on in his announcement. For example, the new policy rewrites the definition of “homosexual conduct” that constitutes grounds for dismissal. Previously, the military had used a broad definition which included the “propensity or intent” to engage in “homosexual acts.” The new policy defines such conduct more narrowly, describing the grounds for misconduct as “engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts, a statement by a Service member that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, or marriage or attempted marriage to a person known to be of the same biological sex.” While the terms haven’t been radically overhauled, the narrower definition could make it more difficult for investigations to be initiated.

Other points of interest: the Pentagon now requires that “a preponderance” of evidence be provided to warrant a dismissal. Investigators can no longer use a service member’s decision “not to discuss the matter” against him or her. And investigators are also now expected to consider the source of evidence against a service member and the circumstances in which it’s received. For instance, a source may be considered unreliable if he or she has a “prior history of conflict” with target of the investigation or “a motive to seek revenge against or cause personal or professional harm” to the service member in question.

To read the full text of the new DADT policy—with all the revisions tracked and marked in red—click here.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest