The difference is between
this: LINK
and this: LINK
The first is a a logo with no unit loyalty or combat pride connotation issues -- nor is it uniform insignia in the legal sense; the second carries both those burdens. I have no problem with the former; I don't even have a problem with the 1st ID patch being used. I would, OTOH, not like to see the 1st Mar Div, 82d, 101st or SF patches so used...
The legal problem will be the undoing of a IMO, necessary law.
The Air Force redid their logo and adopted it as an
insignia. Theirs is okay in my estimation. The Army logo is less attractive and symbolic IMO and doesn't adopt well as an insignia.
I noticed a picture of Cody, the Vice, with that patch a few weeks ago. Whatever turns their crank.
I liked the old DA patch well enough (LINK) but tastes differ... ;)