In a move generating both relief and resistance, the U.S. military is inviting former members discharged over the COVID-19 vaccine mandate to rejoin, but with a stipulation: they must affirm that their prior exits were voluntary.
Under the Trump administration's reinstatement policy, ex-servicemen who separated due to refusal to comply with the vaccine mandate can return with the same rank and pay, sparking debate over the nature of their departures, as Just the News reports.
The mandate, which commenced in August 2021, required military personnel to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in a rule that was subsequently rescinded in January 2023. However, as these former service members now face the question of whether to return, they are confronted with a requirement that they deny any claims of coercion surrounding their initial departures.
The December executive order by President Donald Trump initiated the reinstatement process. This order declared the vaccine mandate as "an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden.” As part of this move, Trump voiced that military personnel affected by the mandate should be reemployed, asserting his stance that a vaccine mandate should "have never happened."
On April 1, a detailed memo outlined that eligible former military members have until Feb. 28, 2026, to reenlist, provided they meet all existing military standards. This reinstatement, however, comes with the condition of volunteering for at least four more years of service upon their reentry.
An additional hurdle arises as returning members must sign an attestation form, affirming they left the service of their own volition and were not forced out. For some, this requirement has proven controversial and contentious. R. Davis Younts, a legal representative for many affected by the mandate, is at the forefront of challenging the fairness of this stipulation.
Younts has vocalized his concern that such an attestation is problematic for many former military members. He argues that the current guidance offers "a lot of bureaucratic resistance." Those who feel they were forced to exit under coercion find it difficult to truthfully sign a statement saying otherwise. For instance, Younts expressed particular frustration over guidance for the Air National Guard, noting that it seems to discourage members from making a return.
This process leaves former members at a crossroads: accept the terms and return to service or stand by claims of coercion and remain separated. Despite these challenges, some within the Army have taken the step of reinstating soldiers previously discharged over the mandate. Although the Army's actions set a precedent, it remains unclear how other military branches will follow suit in terms of numbers or procedures.
For others, like those within the Department of the Air Force, the requirements are clear, as noted by a spokesperson. Former airmen and guardians who choose to reenlist must give a written declaration that their original exit from the service was voluntary.
The procedural demands, entailing the waiver of coercion claims, have, unsurprisingly, rekindled debates over the initial vaccine mandate. With approximately 8,000 military personnel previously compelled to leave service and up to 250,000 affected by the mandate, the scope of grievance is significant.
Younts suggests that many of his clients have legitimate claims to contest what he describes as errors in administering justice. For these clients, agreeing to the stipulations may feel like a denial of their experiences. Consequently, Younts has found himself advising against signing the attestation in those instances.
The reinstatement policy, while welcoming service members back, does not offer back pay to those returning positions. This aspect is at odds with Trump's promise to provide backpay, a point notwithstanding in the current military procedures reported thus far.
As some former members weigh these conditions, the broader questions about the treatment of military personnel after enforced mandates persist. The current reinstatement plan has set a potential pathway for return, yet it equally highlights ongoing discord and dissatisfaction stemming from how the vaccine mandate was enacted and subsequently rescinded. These developments suggest that the resolution of these issues for many affected service members may still be a challenging prospect.
