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

​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less
American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

Getty Images

Lawyers Must Reaffirm Their Oath to Defend the Constitution

Every lawyer admitted to practice in the United States takes a formal oath to support the Constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of the profession. In recent years, bar associations and courts around the country have held voluntary oath reaffirmation ceremonies, inviting lawyers to publicly renew their commitments and reaffirm the profession's responsibility to uphold the rule of law.

Between us, we have taken the oath eight times - having been admitted to practice law in six jurisdictions, across five states, and both having organized oath reaffirmation ceremonies in our respective Virginia hometowns.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mail-in ballots sitting in trays.

Mail-in ballots sit in trays before being sorted at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters office in San Jose, California, on Oct. 13, 2020.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

U.S. Postal Service Failed to Properly Handle Some Ballots During This Year’s Primary Elections, Audit Finds

Some U.S. Postal Service facilities failed to properly handle ballots during this year’s primary elections, according to a new audit from the agency’s Office of Inspector General. Election experts say the findings call into question the agency’s ability to meet even greater demands for the November election that are under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The audit, which is dated Sept. 4 but has not been previously reported, found a lack of training for post office staff on how to properly and expeditiously handle mail ballots, deficiencies in how ballots were tracked and errors leading to delays, all of which risked ballots having incorrect postmarks or otherwise arriving late to election officials, which could lead to their rejection.

Keep ReadingShow less