Teach commanders religious liberty before they need it

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Christopher J. Motz is Senior Counsel in the military affairs practice group at First Liberty Institute. 

The military asks an extraordinary amount of its commanders. I know because I’ve been one. Commanders are expected to master strategy, personnel management, logistics, discipline, ethics, and the law of armed conflict — all while preparing their units for lethal combat. So it’s no surprise that another legal obligation is often overlooked: protecting the religious liberty of the men and women they lead.

The Presidential Religious Liberty Commission has offered a practical solution. Among its recommendations is a simple but overdue proposal that military leaders receive annual training on religious liberty, updated to reflect recent legal precedents and standardized across the services. That recommendation deserves broad support — not because America’s commanders are uniquely intolerant (far from it), but because they are too often expected to navigate one of the Constitution’s most overlooked protections with little or no formal instruction.

For decades, military leaders have received recurring instruction on sexual harassment, equal opportunity, ethics, cybersecurity, operational security, and the law of armed conflict. Each reflects an area where Congress or the Pentagon concluded that good intentions alone were insufficient. Religious liberty deserves an elevated place on that list.

The Constitution does not stop at the gates of a military installation. Military necessity may justify certain restrictions impermissible in civilian society, but service members remain protected by the First Amendment. In fact, the law requires the armed forces to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs whenever doing so does not undermine military necessity. Yet too often, commanders receive little practical guidance about what that obligation requires.

The result has been predictable. Over the past two decades, the services have repeatedly stumbled into avoidable controversies. Service members have been told they could not display personal religious items in workspaces. Chaplains have faced pressure over the content of their prayers. Religious accommodation requests have been denied with little individualized analysis.

The COVID-19 vaccine mandate highlighted the issue. Thousands of religious accommodation requests were rejected, including those of the Navy SEALs represented by First Liberty Institute. These rejections were accomplished through processes that multiple federal courts later criticized, ultimately leading the Department of Defense to reverse course. These episodes differed in their facts, but they shared a common feature: many decision-makers simply lacked a firm understanding of the law governing religious liberty.

That is not a criticism of military leadership. It is an indictment of military education. Most commanders are not constitutional lawyers, and most of their legal advisers are generalists, not religious freedom specialists. They cannot be expected to intuit decades of First Amendment jurisprudence –– especially the numerous significant legal developments since the last department-wide regulation update –– while balancing mission accomplishment, unit cohesion, and readiness. Like every other aspect of military leadership, protecting constitutional rights is a teachable skill.

The timing of the Commission’s recommendation is especially important. The 2025 National Security Strategy rightly recognizes that America’s commitment to religious liberty is not merely a domestic constitutional principle but a strategic advantage that distinguishes the United States from many of its adversaries. Nations that respect conscience tend to inspire deeper loyalty, attract stronger allies, and project moral credibility abroad. Those principles should not end when Americans put on the uniform. They should be modeled within the armed forces themselves.

High-quality annual instruction would not turn commanders into constitutional scholars. And it would not create new rights or diminish military discipline. It simply ensures that leaders understand the legal framework before difficult questions arise. What are the limits on restricting religious expression? How should a commander evaluate a request for religious accommodation? What role do military chaplains play? When does military necessity justify limiting religious exercise, and when does it not? These are not academic or theoretical questions. They arise every year, across every branch of service.

Better training would also protect commanders themselves. Many religious liberty disputes begin with uncertainty, not malice. A commander who has received clear instruction is less likely to make an avoidable mistake that harms a service member, disrupts a unit, or results in costly litigation. Good training promotes consistency, confidence and trust throughout the chain of command.

Critics may worry that emphasizing religious liberty comes at the expense of other military priorities or creates an uneven playing field among service members. The opposite is true. Far from weakening unit cohesion or command authority, proper training reinforces a commander’s core obligation: to treat every service member fairly, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or of any other faith.

A military that respects religious liberty is not granting special privileges to the devout — it is honoring a constitutional guarantee that belongs equally to every American that serves. Upholding that guarantee does not divide the force. It strengthens it.

Our military rightly prides itself on developing leaders through continuous education. The Commission’s recommendation recognizes that constitutional leadership deserves the same investment. America’s military commanders have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to learn, adapt and improve. Giving them better tools to safeguard one of the nation’s oldest freedoms is not an indictment of past failures. It is an expression of confidence that they can uphold both military excellence and the Constitution they swore to defend.