

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Thousands of United States service members who lost their military careers after reporting a sexual assault live with stigmatizing discharge papers that prevent them from getting jobs and benefits, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The report is the result of a 28-month investigation by Human Rights Watch, with the support of Protect Our Defenders, a human rights organization that supports and advocates for survivors of military sexual assault. Under pressure from the public and Congress, the US military has in recent years implemented some protection for service members who report sexual assault, but nothing has been done to redress the wrongs done to those who were unfairly discharged.
The 124-page report, "Booted: Lack of Recourse for Wrongfully Discharged US Military Rape Survivors," found that many rape victims suffering from trauma were unfairly discharged for a "personality disorder" or other mental health condition that makes them ineligible for benefits. Others were given "Other Than Honorable" discharges for misconduct related to the assault that shut them out of the Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system and a broad range of educational and financial assistance. The consequences of having "bad paper" - any discharge other than "honorable" - or being labeled as having a "personality disorder" are far-reaching for veterans and their families, impacting employment, child custody, health care, disability payments, burial rights - virtually all aspects of life.
"Military rape victims with bad discharges are essentially labeled for life," said Sara Darehshori, senior counsel in the US program at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. "Not only have they lost their military careers, they have been marked with a status that may keep them from getting a job or health care, or otherwise pursuing a normal life after the military."
"Bad paper" has been correlated with high rates of suicide, homelessness, and imprisonment among veterans. Those with "personality disorder" or other mental health discharges have to live with the additional stigma of being labeled "mentally ill."
Despite the high stakes, there is little veterans can do to fix an unjust discharge, Human Rights Watch found. US law prohibits service members from suing the military for any harm suffered related to their service. The Boards for Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review Boards, the administrative bodies responsible for correcting injustices to service members' records, are overwhelmed with thousands of cases.
Human Rights Watch, with assistance from Protect Our Defenders, conducted more than 270 in-person and telephone interviews, examined documents produced by US government agencies in response to numerous public record requests, and analyzed data on cases in the Boards for Correction reading room that referenced "personality disorder" or "adjustment disorder." Researchers spoke to 163 survivors of sexual assault from the Vietnam War era to the present day.
"As I look back on the incident I have at times cursed myself for speaking up and reporting what happened," one rape survivor said. "I cannot even begin to express how this entire ordeal has affected my life."
In recent years, public attention has been drawn to the problem of combat veterans being given bad discharges for mental health conditions or misconduct that may in fact be symptomatic of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Congress has made it harder to discharge combat veterans on mental health grounds without checking for PTSD. However, the additional protections have not been extended to sexual assault survivors even though they also suffered trauma in service and the prevalence of PTSD is higher among rape victims than combat veterans.
Lack of Recourse for Wrongfully Discharged US Military Rape Survivors
"We regularly hear from people who report sexual assault that they are being threatened with discharge for mental health reasons or trumped-up misconduct charges," said Colonel Don Christensen, president of Protect Our Defenders and a former Air Force chief prosecutor. "Traumatized young service members may be willing to take a bad discharge just to escape their perpetrator without realizing the costs of their decision. Many more buy into the myth that it will be easy to upgrade their discharge later."
The Defense Department's standard response to service members who suffered sexual assault and allege improper discharge is to recommend they seek review by the Boards for Correction of Military Records or Discharge Review Boards. However, well over 90 percent of those applying to the Boards are rejected with almost no opportunity to be heard or any meaningful review. Lawyers for veterans say their cases often include considerable evidence and supporting documents. Yet Board members often spend only a few minutes deciding a case and may reach a decision without reading the submitted material. Because the courts give special deference to military decisions, judicial oversight of the Boards is virtually nonexistent.
"Military lawyers and veterans see the Boards as a virtual graveyard for their cases," Darehshori said. "Many veterans we spoke with were reluctant to put themselves through the trauma of reliving their assault to try to fix their record when they saw no hope for success."
Congress should require the Defense Department to expedite review of cases of sexual assault victims who believe they were wrongfully discharged. The defense secretary should instruct the Boards to be more open to considering upgrade requests from sexual assault victims, bring evidentiary requirements for proving a sexual assault into line with those used by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and create a presumption in favor of changing the reason for discharge from personality disorder to "Completion of Service," in certain cases.
To ensure that all service members receive due consideration of their claims, Congress should create a right to a hearing before the Boards for Correction of Military Records and provide greater information to the public on all decisions. A representative working group should be created to study standards for granting relief and determine best practices and procedures.
"Immediate reform is desperately needed to ensure that military sexual assault survivors can get a meaningful remedy for the wrongful discharges that darken their lives," Darehshori said. "They deserve support, not censure."
The following are quotes from rape survivors and advocates interviewed by Human Rights Watch or contained in documents Human Rights Watch reviewed. Starred victims' names have been replaced with pseudonyms to protect their privacy.
"Why should I be discharged because I was raped? I did what I was supposed to do. Had I never come forward I truly believe I would still be in the Air Force."
-A1C Juliet Simmons,* November 2012
"I carry my discharge as an official and permanent symbol of shame, on top of the trauma of the physical attack, the retaliation and its aftermath."
-Brian Lewis, March 2013
"Although agencies exist to which you may apply to upgrade a less than Honorable Discharge, it is unlikely that such application will be successful."
-Army Developmental Counseling Form
"I defy any of you not to have mental consequences if you were raped and harassed repeatedly and even set on fire, while management looked the other way and just laughed."
-Testimony of Amy Quinn before the Judicial Proceedings Panel on Sexual Assault in the Military, May 19, 2015
"I was 18 years old, was a mental mess, and was terrified to be back aboard [the ship] any longer than I had to. I wasn't protected, I wasn't helped, I wasn't safe from any type of harm! So how did I actually know what I was signing or even in fact what an OTH [Other Than Honorable] discharge was to mean? How was I to know that from all the sexual attacks that I had to suffer and the harassment, assaults, threats to my life and safety that for all these years [the discharge would be] a huge factor to how I lived and how my life ended up?"
-SR Heath Phillips, 2013
"It is bad enough to go through military sexual trauma, but to be discredited and labeled is difficult to overcome and causes so much damage. PD [Personality Disorder] is another level of betrayal because it is so stigmatizing.... People think there is something wrong with me and don't realize it was a label just stuck on people."
-PFC Eva Washington*, October 2013
"I have practiced law in Texas for 31 years now, and I've appeared in different state and federal courts in a variety of administrative settings and this is the only time that I've been before a discharge review board. It was a horrific experience ... I found myself being cut off and my client being screamed at which was unlike any experience I have ever had before. My client was just completely re-victimized. They didn't really care what we had to say. We got a decision a few months later that was erroneous in a number of different respects ... and it was a 5-nothing decision not to upgrade."
-JoAnn Merica, attorney for a veteran who was discharged for misconduct after reporting sexual harassment, March 2016
"As I look back on the incident I have at times cursed myself for speaking up and reporting what happened but ... I thought I was doing the right thing ... I cannot even begin to express how this entire ordeal has affected my life; it won't go away and I still struggle with self-esteem and trust and the entire myriad of symptoms victims of sexual assault suffer ... the Navy discarded me like a piece of scrap iron or less; truthfully, this ordeal continues to haunt me ... I am a broken man."
-SA Ken Nelson,* October 2012
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"What a complete clown show," said one critic of Hegseth's new initiative.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday elicited instant ridicule after he unveiled a new plan to offer military personnel testosterone injections.
In a video announcement, Hegseth said he was authorizing a screening program to ensure US soldiers "have the right testosterone levels" to perform at their "absolute best."
"It's well established science that, as we age, testosterone levels often drop," the US defense secretary explained. "Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters aged 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment."
The High-T Department of War. pic.twitter.com/hlAUq3j2cD
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) July 15, 2026
Personnel who are found lacking in testosterone, Hegseth continued, would get recommendations for hormone injections, though he emphasized that this would be entirely optional.
"This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement," Hegseth emphasized. "It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities."
Critics on social media responded to Hegseth's new testosterone injection plan with mockery.
Journalist Amanda Katz joked that Hegseth's plan was "literally gender-affirming care" of the kind that Hegseth halted for transgender service members last year.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) similarly asked Hegseth if the new program means that "now y’all support gender-affirming care?"
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that the Hegseth initiative "is gender affirming care and it completely debunks all of Republicans’ attacks on trans people."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Missouri and a veteran of the US Army, called Hegseth's initiative "the absolute dumbest thing imaginable for the secretary of defense to be focused on."
"We are literally at war and this idiot is in his office doing two camera make up videos on testosterone," Wellman added. "What a complete clown show. I’m so sorry for our poor service members who have to deal with this ridiculous man."
Attorney Bradley Moss likened the Hegseth plan to the plot of Soldier, a 1998 movie starring Kurt Russell that bombed with both critics and audiences.
Moss added, however, that Hegseth's idea appeared even "stupider" than the movie.
Attorney Will Stancil wondered if Hegseth's testosterone program might finally push some military personnel over the edge.
"Without a hint of sarcasm I think he might get himself fragged eventually," Stancil wrote.
The lone Democrat on the FCC said Brendan Carr's plan would "destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families."
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that his agency will soon vote to repeal a decades-old rule aimed at limiting consolidation among television broadcasters, a move that press freedom organizations say would be disastrous for journalism and American democracy.
Carr, a loyalist of President Donald Trump, outlined his proposal in an op-ed for the far-right online publication Breitbart, claiming his plan would "restore balance to the broadcast airwaves." But Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, warned in a fiery statement that "this unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families who depend on local stations for news and emergency alerts."
Carr said the FCC will vote on August 6 on his proposal to eliminate a rule barring any single TV broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of US households—a limit designed to constrain television conglomerates. The FCC, which has a two-to-one Republican majority, is likely to approve the plan.
But Gomez argued in her statement on Wednesday that Carr's proposal is illegal, noting that "Congress wrote that specific [39%] number into federal law in 2004, and it did so on purpose."
"This is not the first time the FCC has tried to move on this issue," said Gomez. "In 2003, the commission raised the cap to 45% under its own authority. Congress stepped in within months, rewrote the law to set the cap at 39%, and made clear the FCC did not have the authority to change it. An FCC vote to raise the cap now would be unlawful, as it would mean doing the exact thing Congress has already said the commission cannot do."
Politico noted that Carr's proposal "marks a likely victory for the National Association of Broadcasters and its members such as Nexstar and Sinclair, which would be freer to pursue mergers that would breach the cap."
Earlier this year, the FCC approved Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of rival TV company Tegna. A federal judge blocked the merger deal in April pending resolution of a legal challenge. If the merger is finalized, the new media conglomerate would reach roughly 80% of US households, blowing past the statutory 39% limit that Carr is now working to remove.
"Just as the FCC had no power to waive a congressional statute to grease the skids for Nexstar’s merger with Tegna, it has no power now to completely obliterate the limit Congress set," Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press, said in a statement on Wednesday. "The national cap remains good policy. It promotes competition, localism, and diversity in broadcasting, incentivizing stations to preserve local newsrooms and local-journalism jobs instead of duplicating stories nationwide and passing that off as local news."
"But whatever the law’s merits may be," Wood added, "the key point is that Brendan Carr cannot undo the limit that Congress set just because he feels like it.”
"America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them."
Days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed to "dismantle” the International Criminal Court, Rep. Ilhan Omar hit back on Wednesday with a resolution urging the US to join the international war crimes tribunal for the first time.
The Democrat from Minnesota was the first member of Congress to push back against the Trump administration's pledge that it would “systematically disable” the ICC's “ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty.”
“The ICC is a crucial tool for justice in places where victims have nowhere else to turn,” Omar told The Guardian. “If we truly believe in human rights and the rule of law, we should strengthen international justice—not undermine it. The United States should lead by example and show that no one is above the law.”
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998. But during President Donald Trump's second term, his administration has waged war on the body, specifically over its investigations into Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and investigations into US personnel over alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
It has imposed sanctions on most of the court's leadership, as well as on those who have "materially assisted" ICC investigations it opposes, including lawyers and human rights groups that have provided evidence.
The administration has also reportedly demanded that the court amend the Rome Statute to ensure that Trump and members of his administration, as well as Israeli officials, cannot be investigated or prosecuted.
Rubio's pledge to dismantle the court has drawn widespread condemnation from human rights advocates.
Agnès Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, said that “in trying to discredit the court, Rubio instead highlights its very purpose: ensuring accountability when those with the power to act choose not to.”
"His arguments read like a tacit admission of wrongdoing," she said, "suggesting concerns that US officials could one day be held accountable for actions that may amount to crimes under international law, including deporting people to torture in El Salvador’s prisons or the campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
She said, "The only reason he would have to fear the ICC is if US officials have committed such crimes outside the United States and the US government is unwilling to hold them genuinely accountable.”
Omar's resolution came as a pair of advocacy organizations launched a lawsuit against Trump and other top administration officials alleging that they illegally "muzzle[d] Palestine advocacy" in violation of the First Amendment when they sanctioned human rights groups that called for investigations into US and Israeli nationals over war crimes in Gaza.
While Rubio has denounced the court's very existence as a threat to “every aspect of [America’s] political and legal system," and argued that it could lead to the prosecution of US soldiers simply for serving in the military, Omar said this was "simply not true."
"The ICC is an international court of last resort, intended to prosecute only the most horrific crimes—war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity—when countries are unable or unwilling to do so themselves," she said. "The best way to avoid ICC scrutiny is simple: don't commit atrocity crimes, and if credible allegations arise, investigate them transparently and hold those responsible accountable."
Omar has introduced two previous resolutions calling on the US to ratify the Rome Statute and join the ICC in 2020 and 2022. Neither of them was brought to the floor for a vote, though the latter one had nine Democratic cosponsors.
Announcing plans for a new resolution on Monday, she said, "I urge my colleagues who believe in justice and human rights to join me."
She said: "America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them. If we respect human rights, uphold the rule of law, and hold ourselves to the same standards we ask of others, we have nothing to fear from the ICC.”