“We are aware of the memo issued by the Oklahoma Adjutant General regarding COVID vaccination for Guardsmen and the governor’s letter requesting exemption. We will respond to the governor appropriately,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said in a statement to media outlets on Nov. 13.
Without elaborating on how the DOD would respond, Kirby said Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin “believes that a vaccinated force is a more ready force” and that it’s “why he has ordered mandatory vaccines for the total force, and that includes our National Guard, who contribute significantly to national missions at home and abroad.”
Kirby’s remarks came after the newly appointed Oklahoma National Guard commander, Army Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, issued a Nov. 11 memorandum indicating that he would decline to implement the Pentagon’s vaccine mandate.
“I hereby order that no Oklahoma Guardsmen be required to take the COVID-19 Vaccine, notwithstanding any other Federal requirement,“ Mancino wrote in his memo. ”Oklahoma Command will continue to process Federal vaccine waivers in accordance with DoD policy.
“Additionally, no negative administrative or legal action will be taken against Guardsmen who refuse the COVID-19 Vaccine.”
The memo was issued just a day after Mancino was appointed commander of the Oklahoma Army and Air National Guard, replacing Maj. Gen. Michael Thompson, who had been a proponent of COVID-19 vaccines and said Guard members would face consequences.
“The governor had been exploring making a change for a number of months, and [Gen.] Thompson had submitted his resignation,” Stitt spokesperson Carly Atchison said in a statement to The Epoch Times. “Once the governor selected [Gen.] Mancino as his replacement, the governor decided to move up the timeline.”
The Pentagon didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.
Their complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, argues that the plaintiffs sought a religious exemption to the Pentagon’s vaccine mandate, but were denied the “fundamental right to the free exercise of religion and protection from agency action,“ which they said ”is unlawful, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.”