Experimental COVID-19 Shots: The Need for Congressional Action on War Department Inaction

Four years later, there has still been no action for accountability for those who tyrannically enforced the COVID-19 shot mandate on the military.

On April 23, 2025, War Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a video posted on X “…the previous administration issued unlawful orders on mandatory vaccines on an experimental vaccine [for] COVID-19.” In a later part of the video, he brought up the prior administration’s “unlawful vaccine mandate” once again.

While carrying out his responsibilities as the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, or USW(P&R), Mr. Jules Hurst III issued a memo on May 7, 2025, to the secretaries of the military departments, declaring that the implementation of the 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate was “unlawful as implemented.”

10 U.S. Code § 1107a “[ensures] that individuals are informed of an option to accept or refuse administration of a product.” When it comes to the administration of a product approved for emergency use, like the once-mandated COVID-19 shot, this federal code can only be waived by the President. From 2021 onward, former President Joe Biden did not waive it, and service members were quick to inform their chain of command of this.

Many service members and veterans believe that 10 U.S. Code § 1107a significantly influenced their statements. Despite repeated inquiries from J.M. Phelps, War Secretary Hegseth, Senior Adviser to the USW(P&R) Stuart Scheller, and other War Department and General Counsel officials have refused to acknowledge it.

Why is this important? Following the blanket rejection of their requests for religious accommodation or medical exemption for the shot, numerous service members referenced 10 U.S. Code § 1107a in their appeals. The significant takeaway from this is that their chain of command cannot claim they were uninformed about this.

However, across the board, they decided to disregard it, continuing to impose an unlawful mandate which booted tens of thousands of people from service in the military—whether voluntarily or involuntarily is beside the point.

Who were the lawbreakers? Which of their superiors ignored the legal grounds for the numerous service members’ objections to the mandate? The names of service members’ chain of command who ignored 10 U.S. Code § 1107a could easily be identified in the service members’ packets for religious accommodations and medical exemptions. Interestingly, no one in the War Department is willing to publicly admit that, are they?

On July 7, 2025, J.M. Phelps submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the following records from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force:

1. How many accommodation/exemption requests for the COVID-19 shot were received by the [branch of service] in 2021 and 2022?
2. How many of those accommodation/exemption requests submitted in 2021 and 2022 referenced 10 U.S.C. § 1107a as one of the reasons for objecting to the shot in the [branch of service]?
3. Of those accommodation/exemption requests that were made citing 10 U.S.C. § 1107a, how many were denied?

On July 25, 2025, a second line of questions was also submitted:

1. How many accommodation/exemption requests for the COVID-19 shot were received by the [branch of service] in 2021 and 2022?
2. Of those received, how many were denied?

And finally, on July 29, a third inquiry was made by the author:

1. How many appeals to the decision to deny religious accommodation/medical exemption request to the COVID-19 shot mandate did the [branch of service] receive in 2021 and 2022?
2. In their appeals, how many members of the [branch of service] cited 10 U.S.C. § 1107a?
3. Of the appeals that referenced 10 U.S.C. § 1107a, how many were denied?

What were the responses from the various departments of the military? Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B)(ii), federal agencies, to include the War Department, are required to provide an estimated completion date of a FOIA request. For two months, the inquiries and multiple follow-up attempts to simply confirm receipt of the FOIAs were met with silence.

That is, until September 8, 2025. For the Department of the Navy, a FOIA paralegal specialist of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Medical-Legal Affairs Office replied:

In regard to who would have the information you requested—after coordination with the subject matter experts, it is my understanding that the data was not maintained. Portions of the requested information may exist; however, it does not in a central location where I may retrieve the data.

In essence, what the paralegal specialist is saying is the Department of the Navy lacks documentation of this crucial information that affected the lives of service members whose superiors disregarded their appeals to adhere to the federal law. The same would likely hold true for the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force.

Thus, it may be essential for Congress to step in to prompt the different military branches to begin the search for this data. The Gateway Pundit spoke to retired Navy Medical Service Corps lieutenant Ted Macie, who cited 10 U.S.C. § 1107a in his Religious Accommodation Request and brought it to the attention of his Chain of Command.

The retired Medical Service Corps Officer and many others have also called upon War Secretary Hegseth, USW(P&R) Anthony Tata, and Senior Adviser to the USW(P&R) Scheller to conduct a comprehensive “After Action Review” to identify officials who violated 10 U.S.C. § 1107a.

“Military leaders are fully aware that any genuine review or investigation could lead to proceedings that might end their careers—and that’s the best-case scenario for them,” Macie said. “That’s precisely why nothing is being done to address the issue, and why the reinstatement process remains grossly inadequate.”

He argued, “They don’t have the luxury of claiming they were just following orders. What kind of precedent does this lack of accountability set for future leaders who might carry out illegal directives, then hide behind the same excuse used during the unlawful COVID-19 mandate?”

Without acknowledging the violations of 10 U.S.C. § 1107a, the retired Navy officer questions how service members can trust that similar unlawful and harmful mandates won’t occur again, as seen previously during the anthrax vaccine program and repeated during the COVID-19 shot era.

“This problem will not fix itself,” he warned. “The Secretary of War’s notable efforts to build a more ‘lethal’ and ‘accountable’ force will only result in a more lethal one, not a more accountable one.” He explained, “There has been zero accountability to date, [adding] early retirements for DEI worship is not accountability.”

“Congress has failed us already, but there are one or two who have been consistent in at least requesting information,” Macie noted. “Maybe now that some of them don’t have the scapegoat of a democrat president, we can get some bits of traction, or maybe just some information to put a case together when we have a Congress with guts.”

The post Experimental COVID-19 Shots: The Need for Congressional Action on War Department Inaction appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.