Politics & the Military
Why I Went on CNN
I don’t know about you, but when I was in college and in my twenties, politics felt like something I could pop in and out of. I paid attention to presidential elections and tuned into the news when it addressed issues I cared about. Most of the time, though, it made me feel depressed. No one running for office ever reflected me—not even close.
Maybe it’s age, or maybe it’s because I married my husband, who serves in the military, but I’ve realized just how much politics rules my life. And the truth is, my life isn’t just ruled by policies; it’s ruled by politicians.
This is why I went on CNN earlier this month to talk to anchor and fellow military spouse Brianna Keilar.
Yes, I wrote a book that touches on the themes we discussed, but that’s not why I agreed to go on national (LIVE) TV—something I found thoroughly uncomfortable. I did it because I am tired of watching policies that my friends and fellow military families rely on to get through this life dragged into partisan political battles. Although the current political party doing this is the Republican party, I would be remiss if I didn’t highlight that Democrats do it too.
More often than not, military families get pulled into politics when a particular narrative serves a DoD or political purpose. We are seen behind:
Welcome home signs: used to evoke pride in our military/nation
Folded American flags: reminders of the cost of war
Both of these military family images tell one story of who we are in a single moment in time, but they are incomplete. My book observes the stories that have been told about military servicemembers and families, but not by them.
The Woke Narrative
Below is what I went to CNN to talk about. As I am a print journalist/writer I’m sure I didn’t convey it all perfectly.
Military policies exist to support the people who signed up to serve. These policies are about military readiness—not politics.
The label "woke" is now being used to criticize these policies. But this tactic isn’t new. The military has always had policies that reflect the diversity of the people who serve.
The difference today is that this narrative is being weaponized to justify political interference in the military. Specifically, it’s laying the groundwork for dangerous actions like the leaked executive order that would politicize military promotions by introducing “loyalty boards.”
If you have been tracking the news since 2020, you may have read commentary from conservative Republicans saying that currently serving military leaders are “woke”. This word was originally used to be a warning system for people of color to be aware of bad actors, namely white people in power. It is being used today by conservatives to say that military leaders are inserting liberal policies into an apolitical military. These policies include diversity efforts as well as policies in support of female service members in a post-Roe v Wade world.
This narrative did not appear accidentally; it was introduced in order to undermine currently serving leadership and set the stage for where we are today.
The reality is many of the policies cited by conservative Republicans are designed to support those who have signed up to serve our nation. These people just happen to have uteruses, be one-half of same-sex couples and are people of color. Some are instituted at the behest of service members and families who have asked for them to improve their access to things that improve their quality of life.
And let’s be clear: this isn’t new. In the 1970s, policies aimed at diversifying and modernizing the military were called “Mod” (short for “modern”). These included everything from integrating Black sailors through retention groups to smaller cultural shifts, like allowing sailors to grow sideburns.
What’s different now is how these policies are being framed for the public. In the 1970s, administrations may have disliked the optics of “modernization,” but they respected the military’s autonomy. Today, politicians like Trump and Senator Tommy Tuberville are undermining that autonomy by using the "woke" narrative as a political weapon.
Why This Matters
This is dangerous territory. By labeling leaders and policies as "woke," politicians aren’t just undermining individual leaders—they’re undermining the institution itself. It’s a calculated move designed to erode trust in military leadership and open the door for direct political control.
Trump certainly has the right to appoint political appointees to advise and shape military policy. But the proposed “loyalty boards”/“warrior boards” would more formally marry military processes with political processes.
Here’s the problem: most Americans don’t understand what military life is really like. Less than 1% of the population serves, so the public takes what political leaders say at face value. And the military can’t push back without proving their critics’ point that they’re political actors.
This is not the first time this has happened. In early 2023 Senator Tommy Tuberville began to hold up military promotions using this narrative as justification for politicizing the military. The DoD had enacted in response to the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Organizations like the Secure Families Initiative called him out for this manipulation and asked other leaders for help in pushing through these nominations because of the negative impact the behavior was having on families. Tuberville slowly stopped talking about abortion as the justification for his promotion holds, and just called these leaders woke. Slowly things started to change. This shifted the conversation away from the needs of actual service members and toward the leaders themselves. If a leader was seen as woke, they could be replaced.
This is why the woke military narrative is particularly dangerous. It intentionally ignores the lived experiences of service members and drags the military into the political fray.
Take DEI programming, for example. Service members don’t see this as some grand liberal agenda. Most of the time, these mandatory online training sessions are viewed as little more than check-the-box tasks. Vaccines? Controversial, sure—but also expected. Service members are required to get flu shots every year, like it or not.
What the public doesn’t see is that these policies exist to support readiness. They’re not about ideology; they’re about giving service members what they need to do their jobs. And this isn’t a hypothetical debate—it’s about access to healthcare, safe housing, and even basic necessities like food.
Did I Really Just Defend Military Leaders?
As someone who reports on military leaders and DoD policies, I never imagined I’d find myself defending them. They’re not perfect, and their policies are far from untouchable. But one thing I can say with certainty: they are not woke. They’re leading a diverse, all-volunteer force and making decisions to meet its needs—not to push political agendas.
Trump and others claim that military leaders are out of touch. In reality, it’s the average American who’s out of touch with what service members actually think, feel, and experience. Instead of trusting politicians to speak for the military, we should be asking service members themselves what they need.
On Hegseth
I told CNN I could not speak about Trump’s choice of SECDEF appointment. My husband is on active duty. I also didn’t have all the facts. I hadn’t reported on the nomination. It would be irresponsible to pretend as though I could speak on behalf of this as an expert. And God help me I don’t ever want to be a political pundit.
However, many members of our community have privately shared their concerns with me. They wonder if Hegseth's military experience is broad enough to be able to make wise decisions that govern our service men and women. They also fear he will not stand up to Trump and not doing so would put service members in a position where they have to choose between following an unlawful order and violating the Constitution or disobeying an order and risking military punishment.
When it comes to the statements he has made about female service members I stand by what I said. I don’t know why we are still asking ourselves if women should serve in all roles. He has said that the very presence of women in combat positions has resulted in a lowering of standards. To this I say, stop complaining….raise the standards and let women rise to the occasion. Don’t bar them from trying based on anecdote and speculation about their impact (there is no conclusive data that they have a negative impact).
This is why I went on CNN. I saw a group of people who could not come to their own defense and a military family population who was worried about access to reproductive health care, safe housing and putting food on the table to say the least.
There are a hundred things I wish I said, but I’m not sad I had an opportunity to tell politicians to stop politicizing the military.
