Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

When Sexual Assault Becomes An Occupational Hazard

Opinion

Young female soldier in camouflage uniform strides along a gravel road carrying a heavy duffel bag, focused and determined on mission

A judge ruled a servicewoman's rape a workplace injury—as Hegseth guts programs protecting women and blocks their promotions. Read the full story.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

A judge just dismissed the lawsuit of a civilian who reported that she was raped in her own bed aboard a Navy vessel. While Elsie Dominguez spent years fighting for justice, taking an unpaid year off to recover, the man she says assaulted her kept collecting a paycheck during his investigation. In the end, the court ruled that being raped on a Navy ship meant, by law, that it occurred within the scope of her employment. The judge said it should be treated as a workers’ comp claim. Like a slipped disc. Apparently, in the military, rape is an occupational hazard.

For decades, sexual assault has festered, with leaders repeatedly promising reform and then failing to live up to those promises. Now, only around ten percent of young people would even consider joining the military, and 28 percent of young people polled by the DoD “pointed to the possibility of sexual harassment or assault” for why not.


Instead of working to solve this problem, Hegseth fired the first-ever female Chief of Naval Operations without explanation along with the female U.S. military representative to NATO. Hegseth has since interfered with promotions for numerous female senior officers across all branches, blocking two outstanding female Army officers from becoming one-star generals, and of 22 Navy captains who received appointments to the rank of rear admiral, lower half, there were no women on the list. The New York Times has reported that the percentage of high-ranking officer nominations going to women is at its lowest level in at least 25 years. During my time as a Navy pilot, my squadron held focus groups that revealed most women didn’t feel comfortable reporting sexual assault because all our squadron’s Victim Advocates were male.

Hegseth’s warpath against women puts them at risk while not making our military any stronger. Honoring claims from his Fox News days like “I’m straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles,” Hegseth has steered the Pentagon to initiate a review of women in ground combat jobs–a thinly veiled attempt to make the military inhospitable to women to keep them from leadership. When combat time becomes a top metric to measure leadership ability and competence, gatekeeping women from those roles will keep them subordinate. The deliberate removal of women in leadership makes women who rely on that representation less safe.

The Secretary of Defense has made it harder to complain about assault, bias, and harassment. Since 1951, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) offered servicewomen a way to report directly about assignments, equipment, health issues, family pressures, and the policies that impacted their service; Hegseth terminated the program, accusing it of “advancing a divisive feminist agenda that hurts combat readiness.”

There are strategic reasons we should take care of our service women. Women represent a higher percentage of the recruitable population than men; back in 2018, the Navy’s then chief of personnel said of women: “That’s where the talent is.” Plus, an overrepresentation of men has a negative effect on security policy initiatives. Already, the likelihood of separation for women from the military used to be 28% higher than for men, largely attributed to sexual assault, family planning, and childcare. Now, Hegseth has eliminated all DEI offices and initiatives within the Department of Defense.

What appears to be a deliberate effort to abuse women in the military mirrors the agonizingly slow release of the Epstein files. Many documents remain undisclosed, the release date has long since passed, and even the names of victims weren’t properly redacted, which presents as either spectacular incompetence or a deliberate attempt to intimidate other survivors. Nearly two-thirds of women who report sexual misconduct in the military already experience retaliation; Hegseth has since instituted new reporting rules so backwards that they are likely to silence victims. Perhaps it is not surprising that survivors have yet to see justice–their leadership may want it that way. The Secretary of Defense himself has been accused of sexual assault (he settled for $50,000), and there are allegations that he sexually pursued female employees at the nonprofit he briefly ran. When people who speak out see no justice, it discourages others from speaking out. Silence allows the abuse to continue.

That’s why when survivors do come forward, we have to have their backs. This is a matter of human decency, fairness, and justice. But also, an institution that doesn’t take care of its people doesn’t retain them, and it doesn’t recruit the next generation either. Every young person who watches Elsie Dominguez’s case get filed as a workplace injury could have been a future recruit who may instead decide this isn’t the life for them.

For our leadership to appear unphased by an incident like this reveals a deep moral rot. Elsie Dominguez is currently assigned to the USS Puller as 1st Assistant Engineer. She is also a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve. This means she is serving her country through civilian work and as a Reservist, working daily to defend our nation, but without any legal avenue for justice for the sexual assault she experienced while doing that work. How are we achieving lethality if we tell the troops we claim to support that rape is just part of the job?

I want to live in a country where sexual assault isn’t an expected side effect of wearing the uniform. As long as women are more likely to be killed or raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy, it’s hard to argue we’re not the bad guys. What are your representatives saying about this? If they’re not speaking up, then they almost certainly aren’t taking any action to actually solve these problems. So speak out against them. Call them, shame them, and vote them out.This election cycle, we can prove that at least the people of this country still have a conscience. Then we can get to work.


Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.


Read More

​Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe

Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe at the Ithaca Commons on October 13, 2026 in Ithaca, New York.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Sexual Violence Requires More Than Legal Accountability

In the wake of public attention to the Cornell fraternity alleged gang-rape, headlines resound with statements of concern and calls for greater accountability. These calls are not new. They have followed countless incidents of sexual violence, whether on a college campus, in connection with work, or within an intimate relationship. Despite decades of law and policy reform, sexual violence continues to run rampant. While law and policy reform are sorely needed, we will not see long-lasting change unless we address what accountability truly means. Our collective response should aim for a world where no one would ever think it was ok to commit, condone, or be a passive witness to sexual violence, never mind that it would be ok to send the kind of text messages that were allegedly exchanged at the Cornell fraternity where the rape allegedly took place.

As policymakers consider reform, a comprehensive approach to accountability should consider the known limitations of criminal and civil justice systems. Problems with the criminal legal system are legion, both within and beyond sexual violence cases. These include racially discriminatory application of laws criminalizing sexual violence, that, for example, have led to harsher punishment when the accused is a person of color and lesser punishment when the survivor is a person of color. Survivors continue to be doubted and subjected to biases and stereotypes, including that survivors lie about their experience, that they somehow invited the violence, or act with self-interest or ulterior motive when coming forward.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

From the Gilded Age to Citizens United, discover how recent Supreme Court rulings empower mega-donors, reshape party spending, and impact American democracy.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Rulings Help the GOP

American elections have always been dominated by moneyed interests. For instance, during America’s last Gilded Age, in the presidential election of 1896, William McKinley, the Republican candidate, outspent his Democratic challenger by $3.5 million (roughly $140 million in today's dollars) to $400,000 (approximately $16 million today). McKinley went on to win the election with the help of robber baron J.P. Morgan and monopoly Standard Oil. As the example shows, powerful special interests have often translated their vast economic power into political influence. But recent court decisions threaten to permanently entrench the financial imbalance between the Republican and Democratic parties.

In this light, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) decision to transfer more than $50 million to beleaguered congressional campaigns across the country must be judged. The impact of this massive infusion of cash into the otherwise struggling Senate campaigns cannot be overemphasized. On the other side, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cannot match the GOP’s deep pockets filled by the likes of Elon Musk. The Republicans, even before this deluge of special interest money, enjoyed financial advantages. The money is coming at a particularly pivotal moment in the campaign as Republicans find themselves electorally underwater due to Trump’s unpopularity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


The legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less