The Better Outfitting Our Troops or BOOTS Act has a noble-sounding name, but it is the exact opposite in practice.

Introduced earlier this year, the proposed legislation would prohibit U.S. servicemembers in uniform from wearing any “optional boot” — that is, boots not formally issued but still permitted — unless the footwear is manufactured entirely in the U.S. Supporters claim the measure promotes quality and readiness, but it’s really just a protectionist giveaway to domestic bootmakers that will limit soldiers’ choices, increase their costs, and put their well-being at risk.

At the BOOTS Act’s core is an age-old protectionist formula: It would restrict the market under the guise of patriotism and funnel profits to politically connected industries.

In this case, the primary beneficiaries are U.S. boot manufacturers who, unsurprisingly, are lobbying hard for the bill’s passage. They stand to gain handsomely by locking out foreign competitors and forcing tens of thousands of American troops to buy from a narrow set of approved vendors.

Although protectionism as a general proposition is contemptible, this is far worse. You can't get much lower than trying to make a buck off servicemembers at the expense of their health and performance, which is exactly what restrictions on their footwear options will do.

© The Hill