Author: Becky Haugen

FOIA Under Fire: Why Military Law and Justice Depend on Open Records

Posted on by Becky Haugen

DOJ Bond FOIA

For service members facing courts-martial, medical retirement disputes, or appeals before military boards, one tool often makes the difference between fairness and frustration: the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA allows attorneys to uncover critical records, everything from investigation files to medical reports, that service members need to defend their honor, protect their benefits, and ensure justice.

But a recent move by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to demand a $50,000 bond in a FOIA case has sent shockwaves through the legal community. If upheld, it could create dangerous barriers for military members and veterans who rely on FOIA for access to the truth.

Why FOIA Matters in Military Justice

  • Uncovering Evidence – FOIA requests often reveal investigative files, disciplinary records, and administrative correspondence that can prove whether a service member was treated fairly.
  • Medical and Retirement Benefits – In MEB/PEB cases, FOIA ensures access to medical evaluations and disability determinations that directly impact a service member’s career and retirement benefits.
  • Accountability – FOIA is one of the few tools that allows service members and their advocates to challenge unlawful orders, expose command misconduct, or review board proceedings.

Without FOIA, attorneys and their clients would be fighting blindly against the weight of the military bureaucracy.

The DOJ’s Bond Request: A Dangerous Precedent

The DOJ recently asked a Washington, D.C., federal judge to require a nonprofit transparency group and journalist Brian Karem to post a $50,000 bond simply to expedite a FOIA lawsuit over Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents. If the group lost on appeal, that money would be forfeited.

For military clients, this precedent would be devastating:

  • Financial Barriers – Most service members cannot afford such sums.
  • Chilling Effect – Attorneys may be forced to advise against pursuing critical FOIA litigation due to risk.
  • Erosion of Rights – The executive branch would effectively gatekeep access to records, undermining both FOIA and judicial independence.

Why This Undermines Judicial Independence

Federal courts, not the executive branch, are entrusted to decide whether cases move forward. Forcing litigants to post large bonds because of a political directive threatens:

  • Separation of Powers – Courts must remain independent arbiters, not enforcers of executive preferences.
  • Equal Access – Justice should not depend on a litigant’s financial means.
  • Transparency – A democracy cannot function if government records are shielded from scrutiny by artificial financial barriers.

Why This Matters for Military Members and Veterans

If this approach spreads, service members could find themselves unable to access their own service records when fighting unjust actions by the military. From challenging unlawful orders to securing disability ratings, FOIA is the backbone of transparency in military law.

Blocking FOIA through financial gatekeeping would not only harm individuals, it would weaken trust in the justice system itself.

Resources and References

Polygraphs in the War Department: A Dangerous Step for Federal and Military Employees

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Polygraphing Federal Workers and Service Member

When news breaks that senior leadership wants to clamp down on “leaks” by ordering random polygraph tests for Department of Defense employees and service members, it may sound like a tough approach to discipline. But beneath the surface, it reveals something far more troubling.

Imagine being a civilian analyst who has worked for years in the Pentagon, or a young service member stationed overseas. You’ve given your career, your loyalty, and your reputation to your job. Then one day, you’re summoned to take a lie detector test, not because you’re accused of wrongdoing, but simply because the leadership wants to make an example out of “someone.” Suddenly, your job, your career, and even your honor are tied to a machine that courts themselves hesitate to trust.

Polygraphs are not foolproof. They measure stress, not truth. And stress runs high when your livelihood is on the line. A nervous breath, a racing pulse, or even the memory of a past mistake can trigger results that look suspicious. For federal employees, this creates the risk of being disciplined, demoted, or fired without real evidence. For military service members, the consequences can be even harsher, career-ending investigations, loss of retirement, or even court-martial referrals.

What’s more concerning is the power dynamic at play. In the military and defense world, careers depend heavily on trust from the chain of command. By inserting random polygraphs into that environment, leadership turns trust into fear. It chills communication, discourages whistleblowers, and silences those who might otherwise raise legitimate concerns. The War Department becomes less about defending the nation and more about policing its own employees under a cloud of suspicion.

This is not just a matter of workplace policy, it’s a legal landmine. Federal workers are protected by the Constitution and statutes like the Civil Service Reform Act and Privacy Act. Military members are entitled to due process under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Random polygraph sweeps brush aside those safeguards. They flip the burden of proof, turning ordinary employees into suspects. They stretch constitutional limits on privacy and due process. And they invite abuse, where the results of a questionable test could be used to target individuals for reasons that have nothing to do with leaks.

At its core, this push for polygraphs is less about national security and more about power. It suggests that the War Department’s leadership can bypass established protections whenever it feels threatened by criticism or exposure. But history shows that when leaders demand tools of intimidation instead of lawful process, the rights of ordinary employees and service members erode first, and restoring them is never easy.

For those who serve, whether in uniform or in civilian roles, the warning is clear: unchecked demands for polygraph testing are not a show of strength, but a sign of weakness in leadership. They risk transforming the workplace into a climate of fear, where truth becomes secondary to control. And that is a dangerous path for a department tasked with defending a free nation.

 

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Federal employees and service members facing adverse action should seek representation from a qualified attorney.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., defends service members, federal employees, and civilian contractors in cases involving adverse actions, investigations, and injustices in the military and federal workplace. With decades of experience, our firm is dedicated to protecting the rights of those who serve. Learn more at www.militarydefense.com.

A Veteran’s Fight for Justice Continues in Federal Court Against the U.S. Navy

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Veteran’s Fight for Justice Continues in Federal Court Against the U.S. Navy

A decorated U.S. Navy veteran has taken his fight for justice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging what he contends is an unfair and unlawful disability rating that stripped him of the retirement benefits he earned through combat service. Represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the case asks the appellate court to correct a series of errors by the Navy’s Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR).

A Story of Service and Sacrifice

This veteran served honorably as a Petty Officer First Class in covert reconnaissance squadrons, flying dozens of combat missions across Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans. His role placed him in direct danger, tracking enemy positions, calling in strikes, and witnessing devastation at close range.

One mission in particular, an air campaign that resulted in over 180 enemy combatants killed in action, left lasting scars. In the months that followed, he developed the hallmarks of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): intrusive memories, nightmares, anxiety, and depression. By 2007, Navy doctors determined his PTSD was permanent, ending his career as a flight technician.

Despite his clear diagnosis, the Navy awarded him only a 10% disability rating, far below the 50% rating mandated by federal law (VASRD § 4.129) for service-related PTSD severe enough to cause separation from service. That rating meant severance pay instead of medical retirement, a decision that has denied him lifetime benefits for over 15 years.

A Long Legal Battle

The veteran sought relief through the PDBR, which in 2022 admitted his PTSD was service-connected and warranted a retroactive 50% rating. Yet the Board simultaneously cut his rating back to 10% without ever conducting a follow-up medical examination, contradicting both statute and regulation.

Federal district court upheld the Navy’s decision earlier this year, prompting the veteran to appeal. His case now rests with the D.C. Circuit, where his attorneys argue that the Navy’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law and that the proper remedy is full medical retirement.

“This case is about more than numbers on a chart,” said Dylan Thayer, lead counsel. “It is about honoring the sacrifices of those who served in combat, ensuring that the law is applied fairly, and correcting years of injustice.”

Broader Implications

The outcome of this appeal could have lasting implications for thousands of veterans who were medically separated with low ratings between 2001 and 2009, a period Congress has acknowledged was plagued by systematic under-rating of combat-related disabilities.

For this veteran, the case is deeply personal. “After everything he gave in service to his country, he deserves the benefits promised under law,” Thayer added.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this release does not create an attorney–client relationship. Every case is unique, and results depend on the facts and circumstances of each matter.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized boutique law firm representing service members, federal employees, and veterans in complex military and federal employment matters. With decades of combined experience, the firm advocates for those facing injustice in courts-martial, boards of inquiry, correction boards, security-clearance cases, and federal appeals.

Army Family Files Federal Lawsuit Over Privacy Act Violations After Unlawful Release of Records

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Privacy Act

A married Army couple has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the Department of the Army unlawfully released sensitive personal information protected under federal law. At the heart of the case is a military police report that contained unredacted details about the family, including Social Security numbers, Department of Defense identification numbers, dates of birth, and the names of their minor children.

The couple contends that the release of this information, without their knowledge or consent, directly violated the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, which prohibits government agencies from disclosing personal records contained within a “system of records” absent a written request or authorization. The law makes clear that any intentional or willful release of protected data that causes harm opens the door to civil liability.

Here, the unredacted report was transmitted to a third party during a private custody dispute. Not only was the disclosure made without any lawful basis, but the Army itself later conceded through its Installation Management Command that the report had been released in violation of federal law. The complaint alleges the release was willful and intentional, even occurring after the Army employee responsible received a system-generated warning about disseminating personally protected information.

Legal precedent strengthens the family’s claim. In Doe v. U.S. Department of Justice and Chambers v. U.S. Department of the Interior, the D.C. Circuit confirmed that unlawful disclosures causing adverse effects, such as financial costs or emotional distress, are actionable. The complaint cites these principles in establishing all four required elements of a Privacy Act damages claim:

  1. The police report was a record within a system of records.
  2. The Army improperly disclosed the record.
  3. The disclosure was willful and intentional.
  4. The plaintiffs suffered adverse effects, including more than $20,000 in legal fees and lasting emotional harm.

“This is not just a technical violation,” said their counsel, Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. “When the Army released a document it was explicitly forbidden to share, it violated a fundamental promise of privacy and accountability. The consequences for this family were immediate and severe.”

The lawsuit seeks damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief under the Privacy Act, sending a clear message: military families, like all Americans, are entitled to the full protections Congress enacted to keep their personal information secure.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or sharing this content does not create an attorney–client relationship.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier boutique law firm based in Washington, D.C., representing service members, veterans, federal employees, and their families nationwide. With decades of combined experience, the firm advocates for justice in military, administrative, and federal courts.

When the Military Orders Silence: The Hegseth Directive, Navy Reporting Guidance, and the First Amendment Risks

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Social Media Naval Branch

 

New Navy Guidance: Reporting Improper Social Media Use

On September 15, the Chief of Naval Operations released a memo instructing how to receive, refer, and track reports of “unprofessional personal social media use.” Navy Times The memo directs that reports be forwarded through the chain of command, with periodic status updates up to the CNO level, but states that the Chief of Naval Personnel is not to perform investigations unless the matter warrants accountability tied to unprofessional use. Navy Times

This formal process institutionalizes oversight and surveillance of Sailors’ online behavior. It underscores that social media posts are no longer purely personal acts: they are subject to command visibility and may trigger review or discipline.

The Navy Social Media Handbook also confirms that Sailors remain subject to the UCMJ at all times, including off-duty, and that “improper or inappropriate online behavior … may result in administrative or disciplinary action.” CSP Navy /navy.mil

Thus, the Navy is actively building procedural infrastructure to catch and escalate online speech potentially deemed unprofessional.

The “Hegseth Order” & Posts about Charlie Kirk

In parallel, top Defense leadership has signaled strong intent to punish service members for celebratory or mocking posts about the death of Charlie Kirk, a private citizen not holding public office. Reports suggest that commanders have suspended or removed personnel whose posts are under review. Navy Times

Because the target was not in government, service members’ comments about Kirk do not implicate contempt under UCMJ Article 88, which applies to certain high officials. And unless there is a whistleblower scenario or clear misconduct, these posts do not fall cleanly within protected communications.

What is left is a commander invoking good order and discipline as justification to suppress speech.

Constitutional & UCMJ Constraints

  1. Parker v. Levy and Military Speech Limits

The Supreme Court in Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974), upheld that military speech can be restricted when necessary to prevent interference with duty, morale, or discipline. But that case also implies that restrictions must be tied to actual harm or disruption, not imagined ones.

  1. Lawfulness of Orders & Narrow Tailoring

Under military law (e.g. the Manual for Courts-Martial), a service member must obey a lawful order. If an order is overbroad, arbitrary, or lacks a proper military purpose, it may itself be invalid.

An order to silence commentary about a private citizen, without showing that it actually harms unit cohesion, is at risk of being invalidated.

  1. Risk of Political Suppression

When the content suppressed is political or ideological rather than directly linked to military function, the risk is that discipline becomes a form of political censorship. Courts have been wary of allowing the UCMJ to be used as a blunt instrument for silencing dissenting views that do not threaten mission performance (Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980)).

  1. Interaction with Navy Reporting Memo

The Navy’s new memo strengthens the command’s ability to monitor, log, and escalate social media concerns up the chain, potentially amplifying the reach of broad speech restrictions like the Hegseth directive.

Because reporting is formalized, a sailor’s post might be flagged even without direct local command knowledge, increasing the chance of review or discipline for commentary that might otherwise have remained unremarked.

That procedural structure amplifies the stakes: if the order is invalid, the entire reporting and investigative chain may be operating under unjustified authority.

  1. What Service Members Should Know
  • Not all speech is punishable, but suppression must be tied to real discipline or mission harm, not mere political disagreement.
  • Orders must be lawful. A directive to punish posts about a private citizen must bow to constitutional limits or risk being struck down.
  • Procedural rights matter. If accused, a service member is entitled to notice, to respond, and to challenge whether the order was lawful.
  • Representation is essential. Where broad or vague commands are used to silence dissent, legal counsel must push back, not merely accept “command authority” as absolute.

The interplay between the Hegseth directive, new Navy reporting protocols, and constitutional protection presents a serious danger: that normal political speech by service members could be censored under the guise of discipline.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we stand ready to defend service members whose voices are suppressed. If you are under threat of investigation or discipline for your online speech, we can challenge overreach and help protect both your career and your rights.

References & Resources

  • Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) – Full Text
  • Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980) – Full Text
  • Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. §§ 888, 892, 933, 934) – UCMJ Articles
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, Part IV, ¶14 – 2024
  • Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034 – Cornell Law School

A retired U.S. Navy Commander praises the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon for Providing Exceptional Counsel During a Complex Military Legal Matter

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Legal Advice for Death Caused by Government

As a career Navy officer, this Commander never expected to need legal counsel — but when complex military legal challenges arose, they knew they needed elite representation. From the very first call, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC provided the guidance, clarity, and advocacy that turned a difficult chapter into a victorious one. Here’s what this Commander had to say about our work, our values, and why they trust our team without hesitation.

“As a retired Military Officer facing complex legal issues, we felt overwhelmed and uncertain about where to turn. From the very first consultation, David Sheldon LLC and team demonstrated not only a deep understanding of military law, but also a genuine respect for our service and situation. Their dedication, attention to detail, and strategic approach gave us confidence every step of the way. We had never been in a position of need for legal counsel but selecting Sheldon was a great choice and the results superlative.”

Commander, US Navy

Protecting Your Future: Legal Guidance for Army Aviators Facing Forced Resignation

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Uh-60 black hawk, Helicopter, Flight image. https://pixabay.com/users/military_material-5427301/

A Major Transformation in Army Aviation

The U.S. Army recently announced that it will cut approximately 6,500 active-duty aviation positions over the next two years as part of a sweeping shift away from manned aircraft toward unmanned systems (Army Times; The Defense Post). These changes will not only reshape aviation units but also leave many skilled aviators facing career-altering decisions, including resigning their commissions.

For those who may soon be selected, the process will be swift and administrative in nature. Yet what happens now—how you prepare your records and position yourself—will directly affect your future rights, benefits, and career options.

Why Record Accuracy Matters

When separation boards, “talent panels,” or reassignment authorities review an aviator’s case, their decisions often hinge on the accuracy and completeness of personnel and medical records. Errors, omissions, or inconsistencies can undermine your position, limit your appeal options, and even cost you valuable benefits.

Personnel Records

  • Ensure your Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), awards, flight qualifications, and training histories are accurate and complete.
  • Resolve discrepancies between official Army systems and your personal records.

Medical Records

  • Verify that all conditions, diagnoses, waivers, and flight physicals are up to date.
  • Seek correction or clarification of any entries that misstate your health history or flight status.

Supporting Documentation

  • Retain copies of correspondence, memoranda, and emails related to your aviation career, reassignment, or performance.
  • Document any waivers or declined opportunities in writing for future clarity.

Protecting Your Rights in Transition

If notified to resign or reclassify, you may have options to appeal or seek reconsideration. These processes often come with strict deadlines. Consulting legal counsel—whether through Judge Advocate General (JAG) services or qualified civilian representation—can be essential in ensuring your case is handled fairly.

Additionally, ensure that your pay, time-in-service, and leave balances are accurately recorded, as these figures will directly affect your separation pay, retirement credit, and post-service benefits.

Steps Aviators Should Take Now

  1. Review and Correct Records – Submit corrections promptly through the appropriate personnel channels.
  2. Update Medical Files – Confirm that all medical conditions and treatments are documented.
  3. Organize Your Documentation – Keep both digital and physical copies of all service-related records.
  4. Seek Counsel Early – Do not wait until you receive notice; understanding your rights now is key.
  5. Plan Your Next Chapter – Secure certifications, validate flight hours, and prepare for transition to civilian or Reserve opportunities.

A Final Word to Army Aviators

You have dedicated your careers to the cockpit and to the Army mission. While the transition away from manned aviation may not have been your choice, how you respond now can safeguard your honor, your benefits, and your family’s future.

Be proactive. Be precise. Protect your record, because it protects you.

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., represents military service members, federal employees, and uniformed officers nationwide. Our attorneys have decades of experience in military justice, administrative law, and defending the rights of those who serve. From courts-martial defense to correction of military records and retirement benefits appeals, we fight to ensure fairness and justice for every client.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney–client relationship. Service members facing separation or forced resignation should consult with qualified legal counsel about their specific situation.

 

Federal Medical Malpractice Settlement Reached After Administrative Denials, Federal Filings, and Painstaking Advocacy

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Army Pilot Wins FTCA Medical Malpractice

Federal Medical Malpractice Settlement—Fox Army Health Center, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

A Life Forever Changed: Settlement Brings Justice, But Not the Years Lost

After years of relentless legal battles, a long-awaited settlement has been reached in a medical malpractice case brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United Army. Represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the client, a retired service member and federal civilian employee, faced a devastating medical injustice that will forever shorten his life.

For years, the client entrusted military medical providers with his annual flight physicals, a critical requirement for his career. These examinations were supposed to safeguard not just his professional readiness, but his health. Yet, despite his family history of prostate cancer and his repeated disclosures of that risk, military medical providers at Fox Army Health Center, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama failed to perform the basic and recommended PSA testing for three consecutive years.

The consequence was catastrophic. By the time the cancer was discovered, it was Stage 4 and terminal, with metastasis spread to the bones and spine. His prognosis, once filled with promise and years of service ahead, was now tragically shortened.

The Veteran pursued justice not for financial gain, but for accountability and recognition of the harm done. His fight exposed systemic failures in military healthcare, failures that left him without the chance for earlier treatment that could have extended his life.

“This is a case about accountability and dignity,” said Attorney Dylan Thayer. “Our client trusted the system designed to protect him, and the system failed him. While the settlement offers some measure of justice, it comes at a heartbreaking cos, years of life lost that no legal resolution can restore.”

The settlement marks the conclusion of a legal journey that spanned years of administrative denials, federal filings, and painstaking advocacy. It is a victory that carries both relief and sorrow: relief that justice has been recognized, and sorrow that justice came too late to change the ultimate outcome.

This case highlights a critical reminder for military and civilian healthcare systems alike: adherence to medical standards is not optional. The costs of negligence are not measured in dollars alone, but in human lives and the time unjustly taken from them.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a national law firm dedicated to representing service members, veterans, and federal employees in matters involving military justice, administrative law, federal employment, and medical malpractice. The firm has built a reputation for delivering results in complex cases where the stakes are life, liberty, and livelihood.

Disclaimer:

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this release does not create an attorney-client relationship.

 

OPINION: Silencing Women in Service Weakens America’s Strength

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Image adapted from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), U.S. Department of Defense, 2013 DACOWITS Report (public domain).

OPINION: Silencing Women in Service Weakens America’s Strength

By the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

A Step Backward

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to shut down the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) is not just about ending an advisory group. It is part of a broader push to reshape the image of the military under a narrow “warrior ethos.” In doing so, it risks violating the rights of service members and weakening national security.

For nearly 75 years, DACOWITS gave women in uniform a voice inside the Pentagon, flagging problems with equipment, training, health care, and readiness. Its closure silences that voice. Even more troubling, it signals a willingness to roll back decades of progress where women have earned the right, through law and sacrifice, to serve in every capacity, including combat.

And this was not theoretical progress. DACOWITS directly shaped the military’s ability to function effectively. As of 2025, approximately 94% of DACOWITS recommendations have been either fully or partially adopted by the Department of Defense since its creation in 1951. Those changes, from equipment design to personnel policies, had real, measurable impacts on readiness and national security. Closing the committee risks losing a proven engine of reform.

The Legal Reality

Hegseth does not have the legal power to remove women from combat or other positions simply because of their sex. Congress repealed combat-exclusion laws years ago, and the Supreme Court has made clear that discrimination based on gender requires an “exceedingly persuasive justification.” Any attempt to bar women would trigger immediate lawsuits and constitutional challenges under the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee.

Uniformed service members—whether Army, Navy, Space Force, NOAA, or the U.S. Public Health Service—fall under Title 10. That means their rights are protected by federal law, and any blanket policy to exclude them based on sex would be unlawful.

Security Consequences

This is more than a legal fight. Removing women from full participation in service threatens national security. Research consistently shows that diverse teams perform better, especially in complex missions overseas and at home. By closing down advisory committees and silencing voices, the Pentagon narrows its talent pool at a time when recruiting and retention are already at crisis levels.

For non-armed services like the USPHS and NOAA, which often deploy alongside the military in disaster zones or global health missions, the chilling effect is real. Labeling inclusion efforts as “woke” undermines critical coordination and risks sidelining officers who are already vital to national response efforts.

A Dangerous Precedent

Beyond the issue of gender, the new directive restricting service members’ ability to speak at outside events and panels further shortens the lines of communication between the Pentagon and the public. When commanders control not just operations but also outside speech, transparency suffers. Service members—military, federal, or Tribal—are left with fewer avenues to raise concerns, seek reforms, or expose wrongdoing.

The Path Forward

Commanders and service members who find themselves targeted by discriminatory policies are not without recourse. They can:

  • File Equal Opportunity complaints
  • Pursue Inspector General investigations
  • Petition their respective Boards for Correction of Military or Naval Records (ABCMR, BCNR, etc.)
  • Seek judicial review where appropriate

Our firm stands ready to defend these rights. Title 10 protections apply across the spectrum of uniformed service, and no secretary can erase them by memo.

Conclusion

Rolling back opportunities for women under the guise of “readiness” is both unlawful and unwise. America is strongest when all who are willing and able to serve are judged on merit, not gender. Shuttering transparency and silencing voices threatens readiness, justice, and the very values the military and federal service are sworn to uphold.

References, Resources & Citations

  • Politico, Hegseth shutters Pentagon women’s advisory group, clamps down on outside appearances (Sept. 2025) Politico
  • Hegseth dissolves women’s military committee over ‘divisive feminist agenda’ (The Guardian, Sept 23 2025) The Guardian
  • Hegseth ‘proudly’ terminates Women, Peace, and Security program supported by Trump (Washington Post, Apr 2025) Center for Strategic and International Studies, Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 and DoD Implementation (2017–2024 reports) Washington Post
  • Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS), commentary on WPS strategy rollbacks (2025) GIWPS
  • Department of Homeland Security Report on the Implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Act (2022) DHS
  • Department of State Implementation Plan for the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security Department of State
  • Women, Peace and Security: Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan (DoD, 2020) Policy Brief
  • Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-68) Congress
  • DACOWITS Annual Reports to the Secretary of Defense (archival, 1951–2024) DACOWITS
  • Title 10, U.S. Code, governing armed and uniformed services Cornell
  • Department of Defense Inspector General and GAO reports on military recruiting and readiness (2023–2025) GAO Readiness Reports