Image 01 Image 03

Next Space Force Commander Grilled Over Firing of Space Force Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Lohmeier

Next Space Force Commander Grilled Over Firing of Space Force Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Lohmeier

Surprisingly, Lieutenant General Stephen Whiting appears to agree with most of what Lohmeier espouses, but may have faced tremendous pressure to fire him

We have previously covered the firing of former Space Force Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, who published a #1 bestselling book documenting the unconscionable spread of critical race theory, DEI, and all things “woke” in the military: Space Force Commander Removed For Criticizing Spread of Critical Race Theory in U.S. Military:

A little more than one year after President Donald Trump launched the newest branch of the U.S. military, the Space Force is reporting its first casualty.

One of the branch’s new commanders has been lost, not due to any foreign actor, but rather sacrificed on the current administration’s altar of racial justice.

A lieutenant colonel in the Space Force has been removed from his post — after he went on a podcast to claim that Marxism is invading the military, according to a report.

Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier was temporarily reassigned after going on a podcast and touting his book, “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military,” according to

“This decision was based on public comments made by Lt. Col. Lohmeier in a recent podcast,” a Space Force spokesman told the outlet.

“Lt Gen. (Stephen) Whiting has initiated a command directed investigation on whether these comments constitute prohibited partisan political activity,” the statement said.

We were so impressed, not only with Lohmeier’s book, which totally blows the lid off the military’s obsession with racist and radical “woke” ideologies, but also with Lohmeier himself, who epitomizes everything honorable about the U.S. military, that we held a live seminar with Lohmeier last December called Saving the Military Service Academies from Wokeness.

The video from the event is here, and is totally worth watching:

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed Lohmeier’s book and the above seminar, to the point that I went out of my way, while on vacation in June in Arizona, to attend a live event where Lohmeier unveiled the trailer for the movie being made about his firing.

I wrote about it here: Matthew Lohmeier – a Tour de Force Supporting our Military Members.
Here is a picture of Lohmeier from the event:

The trailer was awesome, and while it is still being tweaked prior to public release, Lohmeier said the movie should be released sometime in 2024, and I for one can’t wait.

Anyway, now the person who, as mentioned above, fired Lohmeier, Space Force Lieutenant General Stephen Whiting, has been nominated by President Biden to lead the U.S. Space Command, a multi-service command in charge of all U.S. space operations.

And Whiting was grilled pretty hard by Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), and surprisingly “declined to endorse the Biden administration’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in the military at a Senate hearing” last Wednesday:

From a transcript of the hearing provided by Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS):

Sen. Eric Schmitt: Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeier said, our DEI industry and trainings we’re receiving in the military via the industry are rooted in critical race theory, which is rooted in Marxism. He was relieved of his command for those statements, correct,

Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting: Senator, that’s correct.

Schmitt: By you, right?

Whiting: Senator, there were other comments regarding specific political parties that are in addition to what you just quoted.

Schmitt: This was from the podcast, which was cited by you. So I’m asking, is opposition to DEI partisan political speech?

Whiting: Senator, no, it’s not, unless it advocates for a specific political party or candidate.

Schmitt: Okay, well, I would agree with that. So your testimony today is Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeier was relieved for something other than these statements on the podcast, or was that part of your consideration?

Whiting: Senator, it involved a specific quote involving a specific political party.

* * *

Schmitt: Okay, so there were other comments that other than this one I read to you about DEI?

Whiting: Senator I think that podcast was about an hour long.

Schmitt: Okay, well, we’ll follow up with some of our questions. I want to ask you, do you support DEI initiatives in the military?

Whiting: Senator I support a ready, lethal force that draws from the best talent all across America.

Schmitt: Okay, that’s not my question. I support that, too, but that’s not what DEI is. DEI is rooted in cultural Marxism. So I’m asking you, do you support DEI initiatives in the military?

Whiting: Senator I support a merit-based approach to finding the best people across this country.

Schmitt: That’s not DEI either. So do you support DEI initiatives in the military?

Whiting: Senator based on how it is defined, I want to find the best people across anywhere in this country, geographically or any demographic who can support the defense of this nation.

Schmitt: Do you believe that our brave military men and women should be pitted against one another based solely on their race?

Whiting: No, sir, I do not.

Whiting also said he was against racial quotas for officers in the military:

Schmitt: Do you believe or do you accept the proposition that [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs nominee] General [C.Q.] Brown, in his August of 2022 memo that we should have racial quotas with officer class?

Whiting: Senator, I am not aware that General Brown has said that.

Schmitt: If General Brown said that we should have a reduction in number of white officers serving to 67% of officers down from I think it’s a total of 5400 officers. Do you support that?

Whiting: Senator I support that promotion should be based on merit.

Schmitt: Okay, so you don’t support the idea that we would have racial quotas for the officer class?

Whiting: That’s correct, Senator.

Whiting also said that any political partisanship in the military would hurt recruiting and that “the military must be rigorously apolitical and nonpartisan.”

And on the military service members kicked out for refusing to get the COVID vaccine:

Schmitt: Do you think we should actively recruit those 8500 people who were fired for not getting the vaccine?

Whiting: Sir, I would like to see those individuals who can come back apply to come back, yes, sir.

Schmitt: Do you think we should recruit them to come back?

Whiting: Yes, sir.

The video of the hearing is here, with Whiting’s short introductory speech starting at 6:10 and lasting until 10:45, and the Schmitt questioning going from 1:37:54 to 1:43:14:

My take on this is that Whiting is no fan of the DEI and CRT policies that are being jammed down the military’s throats, and fired Lohmeier because he was presented with a him or you, career survival choice, and he was unable or unwilling to sacrifice his own career to save Lohmeier’s, especially since Lohmeier made one crucial error in the podcast in question.

That podcast, L. Todd Wood’s “Information Operation” podcast, published May 7, 2021, included a statement by Lohmeier that “neo-Marxist thought has found a welcome home in the Democratic Party.” That one statement, given DOD’s policy against partisan political activity by service members, was enough for Whiting to hang his hat on in firing Lohmeier, as he indicated during Schmitt’s grilling of him at the Senate hearing. The podcast in question is available here, if you want to review it yourself, but trust me, Lohmeier does say that in the otherwise excellent podcast.

Of course, using that as his excuse for firing Lohmeier at least partly conflicts with the reasons Whiting told Lohmeier at the time of his firing, which was that he fired Lohmeier “for political partisanship while acting in an official capacity, and…for publicly criticizing his chain of command.” Lohmeier believes both reasons are false.

Lohmeier also believes General Whiting’s testimony reveals that the General “clearly demonstrated that [he] was unwilling to affirm his support for the [Defense Department’s] DEI initiatives and trainings,” and that “[h]e was asked several different ways if he supported DoD’s DEI initiatives and, instead of affirming his support, said something that nobody could disagree with; specifically, he said that he cared about developing a lethal and ready force.”

Lohmeier also thinks that Gen. Whiting shares his view that “this woke DEI push” has hurt recruitment, retention and readiness efforts in the military.

Finally, Lohmeier indicates that he faults those higher up than Whiting for his firing:

“It is unfortunate that Whiting felt sufficient institutional and cultural pressure in 2021 to make the decision to fire me for publicly sharing a nonpartisan view that he likely holds himself,” he said. “It is more unfortunate still that our senior leaders lack the courage to speak their minds despite the damage our current policies are inflicting.”

I expected, when I heard that the General that fired Lohmeier was being promoted, to find a raving left-wing partisan, but that does not appear to be the case, which is at least a partial relief going forward. Now if General Whiting can only 1.) not get fired, and 2.) find a way to actually act on what he believes and promote service members based on merit and not the color of their skin, which his boss, General C.Q Brown, seems to believe in. It would also be nice if he could minimize the amount of CRT/DEI indoctrination DOD is inflicting on service members serving in his command, and maybe even speak up about it as well.

We’ll see.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Packetman | August 2, 2023 at 7:35 am

“My take on this is that Whiting is no fan of the DEI and CRT policies that are being jammed down the military’s throats, and fired Lohmeier because he was presented with a him or you, career survival choice, and he was unable or unwilling to sacrifice his own career to save Lohmeier’s, …

Which to this former Marines’ mind makes him unsuitable for command …

    Dathurtz in reply to The Packetman. | August 2, 2023 at 7:57 am

    Everybody else has a term for it: moral cowardice.

    inspectorudy in reply to The Packetman. | August 2, 2023 at 11:11 am

    I disagree with your take. I was in the USMC and I followed orders unless it involved a decision that involved taking lives. If I had been told to fire someone for a cause that was not made clear to me, then I would still fire that person. I was trained to be part of a larger organization and to not question every order. Only if I felt it needed to be clarified because of someone’s life. It is easy now to sit in a chair in front of a PC and say what you would have done but being in uniform at that time it isn’t that easy. I didn’t see this as a “Him or me” situation but as an order from higher up. It could have been for security reasons or domestic abuse and it wasn’t up to this general to question why.

      mailman in reply to inspectorudy. | August 2, 2023 at 12:08 pm

      I highly doubt he was told to fire Lohmeier without being given a reason and if he was told to fire him without a reason and he did fire him then he is a moral coward.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to inspectorudy. | August 2, 2023 at 7:00 pm

      I don’t think you expressed yourself very well here. I have read many of your posts and I do not believe that you would just blindly follow any order given to you by a higher rank NCO or Officer, especially one that involved taking a life. What you are describing is the immediate compliance that is necessary in a combat/tactical environment.

      Bet we aren’t talking about a combat/tactical environment. We are talking about decisions that are made in offices with Officers of sufficient rank that they are supposed to think before they act regardless.

      Yes there is a time to “Snap To”, but even as a Army WO1 I was expected to make decisions with evaluation and thought when issuing commands or even just giving advice.

      coyote in reply to inspectorudy. | August 3, 2023 at 8:21 am

      A guy with 4 stars on each shoulder isn’t supposed to question authority? I don’t know what position you played in the “USMC,” but it must have been an impressively unimportant one.

E Howard Hunt | August 2, 2023 at 9:07 am

A patriotic officer testifying before congress must impart his message much as did POWs at the Hanoi Hilton press events- through ocular semaphore.

Every organ of the federal government is hopelessly corrupt, partially due to the fact the federal government is so large and ponderous. There are dozens or admirals and generals who have random titles and I have no clue what they do or oversee. The only solution is to trim back the federal government and their vast authorities, which I doubt will happen since I can’t remember the last time a law was repealed.

    henrybowman in reply to Guardian79. | August 2, 2023 at 4:05 pm

    “I can’t remember the last time a law was repealed.”
    Assault Weapons ban. Because they were smart enough to write a sunset into it BEFORE passing it. The Democrats will never let that happen again.

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | August 2, 2023 at 9:19 am

Absolutely not. No way.

This politician in a general’s uniform should be passed up on this assignment. He’s not a leader.

Perhaps the position needs to stay vacant until we get a president who will not make every decision through the lens of Marxist social policy.

Lt Col furnished the rope his superiors hanged him with. Fair has nothing to do with it. You go up against leadership, they’re gonna get you. Slim pretext or not. The discharge does seem petty and overly harsh.

The book itself is a provocation – to those looking to ruin our military services – it was woke blasphemy.

I’m not sure if getting discharged wasn’t a purposeful and intentional act in itself.

CQ Brown is USAF Chief of Staff. Whiting is Space Force, whose CoS is Gen JW Raymond. Brown is not Whiting’s boss. Cheers –

“Whiting: Senator, it involved a specific quote involving a specific political party.”

This begs the obvious question: what is the ‘specific quote’?
Why wasn’t this question posed to The General?

//OldSchool Sends//

This is all speculation since we do not know what the quote was that got the Colonel fired. To blame the general for something that we do not have all the facts on is absurd. That’s not how the chain of command works. If every general questioned every order the entire system would break down and the need to know would be thrown out. As a Marine officer, I was trained to follow orders but to question any order that I thought was mistaken or corrupt. At the time he was simply re-assigned. This is a simple order that had redress for the colonel if he wanted to fight it. This wasn’t a firing squad! There was no notoriety at the time and the colonel was not a national figure. He only became so after his book and interview came out and he was fired.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to inspectorudy. | August 2, 2023 at 7:08 pm

    “As a Marine officer, I was trained to follow orders but to question any order that I thought was mistaken or corrupt.”

    And this is where the General made his mistake and yes did show Moral Cowardice. As an officer you were also expected to act with Honor and a High Moral Standard. The General Failed in this case.

    However, he does seem to recognize that and from what I have heard and read I think he is a good leader who made a mistake, unfortunately it’s not one he can correct, so he just has to do better going forward.

    To those who say he should not get the job. Well if we refused to promote any Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine who made a mistake, well then we wouldn’t have a military.

Terrible situation. Administration has created an internal minefield that its own military members must navigate at same time it’s trying to maintain warfighter readiness. A lesson to be learned until we get this turned around.

CRT: Critical Racism Theology.

On the one hand, Lt. Col. Lohmeier was speaking against Marxism, and said modern Marxism has “found a welcome home in the Democratic Party”. This could be interpreted as speaking against the Democrat Party, which is partisan speech.

On the other hand, that modern Marxism has “found a welcome home in the Democratic Party” is objectively observable. By itself, it’s a simple statement of fact or opinion, not an endorsement or criticism of any political party.

But pointing out that objective observation, in the context of a criticism of neo-Marxism, is just partisan enough to warrant some action against him.

Was firing him (or “reassigning him from his command”) an appropriate consequence given the relative severity of the infraction? Given the first point above about objectivity, probably not. A formal reprimand, maybe, but not removing him.

I’m with others here: The order to fire Lt. Col. Lohmeier probably came from higher up the chain and was justified in a way that made it sound tenable and reasonable enough to Lt. Gen. Whiting that he wouldn’t question it too much, but ultimately was an entirely partisan decision in defense of the Democrat Party.

    artichoke in reply to Archer. | August 3, 2023 at 7:20 pm

    I think the standard is that an officer must be apolitical even with fact-based public discussions. He’s not in trouble for being wrong or lying, but for being political.

2smartforlibs | August 2, 2023 at 2:47 pm

All this while the CCP is revamping its rocket force.

“CQ Brown is USAF Chief of Staff. Whiting is Space Force, whose CoS is Gen JW Raymond. Brown is not Whiting’s boss.”

OK, but Brown is nominated for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed, he will be Whiting’s boss’s boss, correct?

    joejoejoe in reply to Tom Orrow. | August 3, 2023 at 8:22 am

    the jcos’ are advisory to pres. not in combatant chain of command. more or less

      CaptTee in reply to joejoejoe. | August 3, 2023 at 9:58 pm

      There are often two chains of command. One you take operational orders from and one that makes your promotion recommendations. You don’t mess with either.

From the article on Matthew Lohmeier a Coup month ago bought and read his book, very frightening our military has gone over the the Cultural Marxists side

Steven Brizel | August 3, 2023 at 8:26 am

With all Biden nominees , talk during their confirmation hearings is cheap.

A couple of takeaways:

LTC Lohmeir’s mistake was publically mentioning a specific political party which qualifies the statement as partisan and connecting it to his position as a military member. If he had spoken more generically, the Powers That Be wouldn’t have found it so easy to can him. This order came from farther up the chain of command.

LTG Whiting is walking a fine line between historic military theory espousing merit promotion and contemporary theory that sometimes favors political rewards. I don’t envy him for being in this position. Those wanting him to be fired or passed over don’t think about who would replace him and what their actions might be. If he stays where he is in the chain of command, he might be able to hold his finger in the dike to help hold back the DEI tide. If he’s gone, that hole is no longer plugged. I hope he isn’t retired (verb, not adjective) in the next year or two.

The problem with determining that LtCol Lohmeir’s comments constituted “prohibited partisan political activity” is that such a determination would be charging that either the Democrat Party or Republican Party is behind everything he is complaining about otherwise he wouldn’t be engaging in “prohibited partisan political activity”.

Would they want to admit that? Probably only to try and silence him, but that would backfire.