Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

I Was a Military Officer for 10 Years. I Got Out Just in Time.

Opinion

I Was a Military Officer for 10 Years. I Got Out Just in Time.

A large banner with the image of President Donald Trump hangs outside the Department of Agriculture near where a U.S. Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle is displayed ahead of this weekend's celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the Army on the National Mall on June 12, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevil

On May 18, 2015, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Over a decade later, as a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy with a J.D., I resigned my commission.

I saw the signs. I feared if I stayed any longer I’d be ordered to act against my conscience.


Few military officers outside of Judge Advocate Generals have a law degree, but I do. I also flew helicopters–MH-60Rs–and am highly trained to fight submarines and fire hellfire missiles and torpedoes. I studied law while on active duty, graduating with a 4.0 GPA, and I was already almost halfway through getting a Master of Laws in Global Business Law from Columbia University when I left the Navy. When it comes to matters of global concern and constitutional law, I think it would be safe to assume I have a more formal background and experience than most.

But in my final months, I watched in horror as overtly unconstitutional moves were made within the government. On June 2, I left the Navy. On June 9, Trump ordered 700 Marines to storm into Los Angeles. Let that sink in. An American president just deployed American troops against an American city. Remember: we are not at war. This was not a military necessity but an act of political theater, designed to intimidate dissenters and strut for supporters. And a reckless gesture driven by personal, petty politics. It undermines everything I have believed in as a service member, an American, and someone committed to the study of law.

Throughout my service, I contemplated the ethical hypothetical: what would I do if asked to carry out an order I believed to be illegal or immoral? I knew I’d refuse, even at the cost of my career. I’m a queer Jewish girl from Berkeley, California. When it comes to foreign service, I value diplomatic solutions over militaristic ones. What was I doing in the military in the first place? Well, for better or worse—and I tend to believe for worse because it is by design—the military is the single best way in this country to get healthcare and education, not to mention financial security. The enlisted ranks are filled with young people trying to get a foot in the door to a better life. Showing up for them was a mission that always motivated me, even if the idea of war did not. I told myself, if you leave, those sailors will have one fewer advocate. One fewer ally to help them navigate an often unforgiving environment. So, I hoped I would never be given an order I couldn’t follow—that I could trust my superior officers. I left the military in part because that confidence had faded. As a legal officer, I felt hypocritical prosecuting sailors for offenses far less egregious than that of our commander in chief, and as a command security manager, I struggled to explain the lack of accountability after our secretary of defense committed a security breach that I knew would get me sent to prison.

I am proud of my military service, but it may quickly become a source of shame for myself and all other veterans if the institution becomes an unaccountable political tool for an unaccountable political tool. The repeated illegal and unnecessary authorization of military force is the beginning of the end.

The United States military is supposed to be a humble institution, one entrusted with a solemn duty to defend this nation. Yet, tomorrow, Trump will order soldiers to display force at his birthday party in a vanity exercise that will cost American taxpayers $45 million.

It’s hard to support the troops when they’re marching on Washington and Los Angeles. But many of these enlisted folks joined for financial stability. When the consequences can be cut in rank or pay, a dishonorable discharge, or a court-martial, what 18-year-old kid is prepared to challenge the orders of the officers above them? And when Trump has fired all the dissenters, what’s left is blind obedience. Now is the time for insubordination. It will take an extraordinary level of bravery.

We can help them. As a country, we can show zero tolerance for this frivolous use of our armed forces. Veterans, active duty service members, and civilians alike must join together to condemn these unlawful and un-American actions. That is the call of duty now. We must all answer.


Julie Roland has deployed to the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating from the Navy in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She graduated law school from the University of San Diego, is currently pursuing a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is the director of the San Diego chapter of the Truman National Security Project.

Read More

Varying speech bubbles.​ Dialogue. Conversations.

Examining the 2025 episodes that challenged democratic institutions and highlighted the stakes for truth, accountability, and responsible public leadership.

Getty Images, DrAfter123

Why I Was ‘Diagnosed’ With Trump Derangement Syndrome

After a year spent writing columns about President Donald Trump, a leader who seems intent on testing every norm, value, and standard of decency that supports our democracy, I finally did what any responsible citizen might do: I went to the doctor to see if I had "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

I told my doctor about my symptoms: constant worry about cruelty in public life, repeated anger at attacks on democratic institutions, and deep anxiety over leaders who treat Americans as props or enemies. After running tests, he gave me his diagnosis with a straight face: "You are, indeed, highly focused on abnormal behavior. But standing up for what is right is excellent for your health and essential for the health of the country."

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less