Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman chose to wear his military uniform while testifying before the House impeachment proceedings last month, sources said, prompting speculation about his reasons.
“He had a choice of what to wear, and I think he wore the uniform because it lends credibility to what he is saying as an officer,” Alex Plitsas, a former Pentagon official, told the Washington Examiner.
An active-duty Army officer said: “Most of us in the military don’t have that option of uniform or civvies. Vindman absolutely had a choice, and he ran with it.”
Army statutes specify that soldiers should wear their uniforms, except when they don’t have to. “All personnel will wear an Army uniform when on duty, unless granted an exception by the commander to wear civilian clothes,” reads Army Regulation 670-1.
Despite Vindman’s role on the NSC, it is not clear who would have discretion over his attire. As the council’s top Ukraine expert, Vindman reports to Andrew Peek, senior director for European and Russian affairs, but the NSC doesn’t have regulations governing uniforms, and Peek is a civilian.
As a military officer assigned to the National Security Council, Vindman would have precedent, if not outright permission, to forego his uniform. Like Colin Powell and H.R. McMaster before him, he wears a suit at the White House. He has also worn a suit for visits to Congress when he was not testifying.
“It’s hard to get much respect like when you’re walking around the White House in a lieutenant colonel uniform,” retired Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr told the Washington Examiner. “So that’s why they generally want these guys to wear a coat and tie, because who knows how important this dude is. If you’re running a meeting, it’s hard to get respect as a lieutenant colonel, but if you’re in a coat and tie, nobody knows who the heck you are.”
[Read more: Trump allies charge Lt. Col. Vindman is disrespecting chain of command with testimony]
Clear direction on what someone in Vindman’s position should wear while testifying before Congress doesn’t exist, military sources said.
“There’s nothing in the uniform regulations which addresses this in either way,” said Gary Solis, a former military judge and law professor at Georgetown University. “It’s just a matter of local customs,” In this case, the custom was that Vindman decided what to wear.
“The same reason he wore a uniform before Congress is the same reason he wears a suit in front of his counterparts on the NSC,” Plitsas said. Few in Congress, Democrat or Republican, are likely to question the testimony of a uniformed officer wit h a Purple Heart, he said.
“In military terms, you might call it an influence op,” said the active-duty Army officer, who has worked in psychological operations. “By wearing the uniform, Vindman pulled the soldier card. ‘Here’s my Combat Infantryman Badge; here’s my Purple Heart; here’s my Ranger Tab.'”
While serving on President Ronald Reagan’s NSC in 1987, Lt. Col. Oliver North wore his Marine Corps uniform when he testified before Congress about his role in the Iran-Contra affair. Vindman will be the first of four witnesses to testify before Congress on Tuesday, when he will be questioned about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
