Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Hands raised in the air, holding each other.​

America’s polarization has closed us off to each other’s humanity. The Golden Rule and the churches may be the way back to common ground.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? How Trump Is Destroying America's Soul

The recent actions by both some Jewish leaders and pro-Palestinian activists against NY mayor Zohran Mamdani are an example of just how far our nation has come from our ideals under the presidency of Donald Trump.

Even with Mamdani's consistent pro-Palestinian statements, he was called a "coward" and a "sellout" because he stood with the Jewish community in remembering the October 7 Hamas attack. Jewish leaders condemned him for his criticism of Israel and Palestinian sympathies expressed in the same breath as remembrance of the attack. But Mamdani understands the connection between the treatment by Israel of Palestinians and Palestinian treatment of Israel.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin in front of a landed airplane.

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on August 15, 2025 in Anchorage, Alaska.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

What Would Putin’s Puppet Do Differently?

This winter, Russia plans to freeze Ukraine into submission. According to an intercepted Russian plan, Moscow intends to use hundreds of ballistic missiles, long-range drones, and glide bombs to strike Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odesa with such intensity that they are cut off from power, heat, and water, slashing electricity and heat by up to 90 percent and crippling sewage systems. Russia hopes that with an energy system so thoroughly destroyed, millions of Ukrainian citizens would become so cold, sick, and desperate that their country might just surrender. Deliberately attacking the heat and water of civilians is a war crime, but Moscow thinks it can get away with it. Ukraine is running short on the Patriot interceptors it needs to stop ballistic missiles, and Putin is betting Trump will continue to betray Ukraine. It’s looking like a safe bet.

Trump shows no evidence to the contrary. On October 9, he got off a call with the Russian president and then immediately lifted U.S. sanctions on Russian diesel. The next day, after Russian strikes killed at least 17 people in Zaporizhzhia, Trump announced it was “time for Ukraine to get a new president.” Days later, the American-controlled satellite network Ukraine’s military depends on was throttled without warning, knocking out service to the drones Ukraine uses to chase down Russian attack drones. Trump denied giving the order, but The Telegraph reported that Musk pitched the idea and Trump agreed.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less
​Herbert Hoover  listening to a one valve radio set.

Herbert Hoover (1874 - 1964), Republican Party candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America, listening to a one valve radio set.

Topical Press Agency/Getty Images

A Second Axial Age Demands Global Leadership Rooted in Hoover’s Ideals

The time has come when we must take an enlarged vision of the future. (Herbert Hoover)

Our 31st President, Herbert Hoover, said this in 1926. Although one hundred years have passed since — and it is always time to take a larger view of the future — his proclamation rings truer now than ever.

Keep ReadingShow less