Winning Minds: Mental Health and National Security

Mental illnesses are a major public health issue. In its 2023 report, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration found that 22.8% of the adult U.S. population is affected by some form of mental illness. The national security community—where my colleagues and I live and breathe—is not exempt from these larger societal issues. If anything, the community can be more susceptible to mental illness due to the weight and sensitivity of the matters they deal with on a day-to-day basis. 

The members of the national security community need to be physically and mentally healthy to tackle the nation’s most pressing security threats. The U.S. government should be an advocate for the mental health of all national security practitioners, from the warfighter to the analyst. A precondition to that support is a deep understanding of the fundamental connection between mental health and national security among U.S. government officials and policymakers. Drawing this correlation will go a long way in reducing the stigma that persists in the federal government today. Greater emphasis should be placed on helping national security applicants understand the mental health screening portion of the security clearance process, as well as on promoting the overall importance of whole-person care for federal employees.

Stigmas Around Mental Health in the National Security Community

A perceived stigma around mental health in the federal government affects the security clearance process. Security clearances and background investigations are critical components of U.S. national security and a must-have for employment in the field. However, research shows that the perceived negative consequences of disclosing mental health issues in the clearance process impact trust and transparency.

On their part, applicants are open to disclosing mental health issues. Last year, a report published by Leidos, a U.S.-based defense technology and innovation firm, found that a majority of prospective security clearance applicants view seeking mental help positively and are willing to disclose their histories and experiences. The same individuals agree that mental health screening should not pose a risk for gaining or keeping a security clearance.

However, the distrust is in the investigators. While the official policy of U.S. government agencies and departments, such as the Department of Defense (DOD), articulate that seeking mental help will not negatively impact one’s clearance, applicants do not believe investigators will view such services, like counseling and therapy, favorably. As a result, applicants either hide their mental health issues in background investigations or refrain from applying entirely.

The stigma around mental health is not exclusively a barrier to entry into the national security community. It also impacts the daily lives of people already in the field. For the same reasons as applicants, national security practitioners may not be open about their struggles for fear they will be looked upon unfavorably. Instead, they will try to hide their hardships. Neglecting one’s mental health creates a negative workplace environment and harms the overall well-being of the individual.

How Can U.S. Leaders Counter the Stigma Around Mental Health?

Leaders in the U.S. government need to understand that despite their guidance, national security personnel still believe that seeking mental help will be viewed unfavorably in the workplace or by security and background investigations. This belief prevents members of the national security community from discussing their mental health and taking actions that will help them get better. Acknowledging this reality is the first step in addressing the current stigma around mental health. 

Current Efforts

The U.S. government has taken some measures to dispel the stigma of seeking mental health care. For example, DOD Instruction 6490.08 aims to balance the confidentiality of service members’ mental health care with a commander’s need to know certain information for operational and risk management decisions. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency also published guidance that addresses several misconceptions about mental health and security clearances, including the common belief that seeking mental help adversely affects one’s clearance eligibility. The Department of Homeland Security produced a similar fact sheet that discusses the importance of mental health and recommends ways to manage stress. While these efforts are meaningful, more must be done to reform how mental health is discussed and dealt with in the government and national security community. 

Targeted Outreach and Top-down Cultural Shifts

Leidos and the RAND Corporation make several suggestions to improve the mental health portion of security screening. While factsheets have been made more accessible to people looking to apply for a job in national security and obtain a security clearance, evidence suggests that targeted outreach of this information is not working well enough. Change needs to start from the top. As Leidos recommends, national security leaders should embrace the positive cultural shift surrounding mental health and actively promote the translation of the broader societal acceptance of whole-person care into the national security community. 

A positive cultural shift to reduce stigmas around mental illnesses could be supported in several ways. For instance, agency and department leaders could start initiatives that create space for conversations about mental health. Furthermore, the power of storytelling goes a long way. Leaders should highlight members of the national security community who are willing to discuss the trials they have faced and how they have been able to seek help. Likewise, the anecdotes could reassure national security applicants that seeking mental help will not be used against them. If official policy and guidance are not convincing, maybe personal stories will be. 

Government Action

To take seriously the stigma around mental health, government leaders need to think and act boldly. For example, the president should appoint a special envoy to oversee the issue. This individual would be the principal advisor to the president on all matters of public mental health and be tasked with coordinating outreach initiatives between executive departments and agencies to ensure that senior leaders are prioritizing the well-being of their workforce. 

Congress has taken similar action. In 2023, Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tina Smith (D-MN), and Joni Ernst (R-IA) launched the Bipartisan Mental Health Caucus aimed at raising awareness for the issue and reducing the existing stigma. But the White House and Congress can take a step further. Together, they should also establish a Blue-Ribbon Commission to identify the best ways to address mental illnesses at the national, state, and local levels.

Altogether, promoting the well-being of the whole person, physical and mental, should be a priority for every leader in the national security community. U.S. national security is optimized when its practitioners are at their healthiest. The stigma around mental health has decreased, and more and more people are willing to discuss the mental struggles they face. But this is only a start, we should not be content. National security community members deserve our fullest support, and it starts with the foundation—supporting the minds that keep our country safe. 

Views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent the views of GSSR, Georgetown University, or any other entity. Image Credit: Canva Images