CITIZENS NEWS

US Military weaponizes service and sacrifice to enforce mass medical experiments, and the harms are swept under the rug

By ljdevon // 2025-10-28

When a person takes an oath to defend the United States, they offer their life as a sacrifice for the nation's ideals. This sacred commitment, however, is being twisted into a tool for coercion, forcing service members to surrender their bodily autonomy for the sake of medical mandates. The very institution that demands their allegiance is using that loyalty against them, compelling them to undergo experimental medical procedures under the guise of readiness. The recent legal battles over the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate reveal a disturbing truth: the men and women in uniform are being treated not as willing defenders, but as a captive population for a forced biological program. Their fundamental freedoms, the very liberties they swore to protect, are systematically stripped away, leaving them with no right to refuse what is injected into their bodies. Key points:

• A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit challenging the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, ruling that rescinding the mandate does not erase the harm inflicted on service members.
• The plaintiffs, former civilian DOD employees, allege they lived under constant threat of termination while their religious exemption requests were ignored and slow-walked.
• The court's decision establishes that federal agencies can be held accountable for damages, providing a path to justice for those who suffered religious discrimination during the mandate era.
• This ruling contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier dismissal of similar cases as moot, breathing new life into legal challenges that were once thought dead.
• Parallel legal actions continue, with active-duty members challenging the mandate's legality, the use of interchangeable vaccines, and the FDA's approval process.

A crucial victory for accountability

In a significant blow to the Department of Defense's attempt to sidestep responsibility, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a religious discrimination lawsuit last week. The court ruled that the case is not moot simply because the DOD rescinded its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in 2023. This decision partially reversed a lower court's dismissal, allowing the plaintiffs' claims for damages to move forward. The plaintiffs, three former civilian DOD employees, argued they endured "constant fear and duress, including the threat of discipline and termination" while waiting, in some cases for over a year, for the military to process their religious exemption requests. California attorney Greg Glaser, who is not involved in this specific lawsuit, called the ruling a "crucial victory for holding federal agencies accountable for their COVID-19 mandate overreach." He stated, "This decision breathes life into countless similar cases that were wrongly dismissed and provides a clear path to justice for those who suffered religious discrimination." This legal development stands in stark contrast to the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which previously allowed the military to avoid accountability. The high court dismissed three cases challenging the Biden regime's vaccine mandate as moot after the mandate was officially rescinded. This judicial maneuvering effectively invalidated the plaintiffs' standing, giving the DOD a free pass to move on as if no wrongdoing ever occurred. Furthermore, because those cases were dismissed as moot, they cannot be used to set legal precedents, forcing every new challenge to start from scratch. The appeals court ruling now punches a hole in this strategy, affirming that the harm experienced by service members and employees has a lasting legal consequence that cannot be simply erased by a policy change or judicial gaslighting.

The machinery of coercion and delay

How exactly did the military enforce this controversial mandate? The plaintiffs' experience paints a picture of a bureaucratic machine designed to wear down resistance through delay and obfuscation. Former President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14043 mandated COVID-19 vaccination for federal employees, including military personnel, with a November 2021 deadline. The plaintiffs in this case submitted their religious exemption requests that same month, citing the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccine development and their belief in their God-given immune systems. According to their lawsuit, the DOD then slow-walked and stonewalled these requests, ignoring repeated inquiries. One response from the DOD admitted it did not have “a timeline on when and how the review process will be.” Even after a federal court issued a nationwide injunction against the mandate in January 2022, the plaintiffs allege the DOD continued its delays, with one email vaguely stating it was “working the submitted exemption requests.” This tactic of indefinite postponement created a state of suspended animation for the employees, who lived for months under the looming threat of losing their careers, as they were treated as subhuman vectors of disease, despite being the bravest and healthiest members of the force. As such, this coercive environment culminated in real-world consequences. The military placed plaintiff Brooke Stadler on administrative leave for failing to comply with COVID-19 testing requirements, leading to her resignation in June 2022. The human cost of these policies has even reached Congress. The Senate has passed a draft of the new National Defense Authorization Act that includes a rider, introduced by Sen. Roger Marshall, forbidding the DOD from issuing dishonorable discharges to service members who refused the COVID vaccine. This legislative action is a direct response to the thousands of service members who faced the destruction of their careers and the loss of their benefits for making a personal medical choice.

The ongoing legal war over informed consent

While this appeals court ruling deals with religious discrimination for civilian employees, a separate but related legal battle rages on for active-duty military members. In the case of Doe et al v. Austin, 18 plaintiffs are challenging the very foundation of the mandate. Their attorney, Travis Miller, argues that the military is violating federal law by requiring injections from vials not labeled with the licensed 'Comirnaty' name. In a telling moment, defense counsel could not even confirm whether vaccines labeled 'Comirnaty' actually exist. This gets to the heart of a critical issue: the FDA’s declaration that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty vaccines are "interchangeable." The plaintiffs call this a "wrongful conclusion," arguing you cannot mandate a licensed product that is functionally unavailable and then supply an entirely different, emergency-authorized product. The amended complaint in that case cites shockingly truncated clinical trials, with participants observed for an average of just four months instead of the FDA’s recommended one to two years. It also highlights that the 'approved' Comirnaty vaccine excluded testing on large segments of the population, including those with natural immunity from previous infection, pregnant women, and people with serious pre-existing conditions. Yet, the DOD mandated it for everyone, ignoring its own regulations, AR 40-562, which entitle those with natural immunity to a medical exemption. These service members are not just fighting for their jobs; they are fighting for the principle of informed consent, religious liberty, the right to think and own your body. They are challenging a system that treats them as experimental subjects whose duty is to obey, not to question what is being done to their bodies. The courts are now the final battlefield where the rights of service members are being defended against a medical-industrial complex that has infiltrated the very heart of American national defense. This forced biological weapons program, and all the damage it wrought on service members, must not be forgotten, and must serve as a historical record, necessitating a hasty end to all medical experiments and unlawful vaccine mandates on military service members. Sources include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org ChildrensHealthDefense.org Enoch, Brighteon.ai

military Constitutional rights pentagon Department of Defense religious freedom vaccine injury national defense FEDERAL EMPLOYEES lawsuit medical freedom informed consent health freedom appeals court vaccine mandate medical extremism service members religious exemption legal challenge covid-19 bodily autonomy military rights