Marine Colonel Publishes Resignation Letter
The tradition of principled resignation in public service is a powerful, if rare, form of dissent. Throughout history, individuals who have resigned in protest — sacrificing career, reputation, and financial stability — have helped spotlight deeper systemic failures that could not be quietly corrected from within. But what happens when the act of resignation becomes not a risk, but a résumé enhancer?
On October 16th, Colonel Doug Krugman stepped into this arena, not as a whistleblower from within, but as a comfortably retired Marine using the pages of The Washington Post to declare: “I resigned from the military because of Trump.” Framed as a bold moral stand, Krugman’s essay seemed aimed at positioning himself as a modern-day warrior for democracy. But a closer look reveals a different story — one not of sacrifice, but of convenience.
Let us first acknowledge Krugman’s military service. He, like many, wore the uniform during a challenging era of post-9/11 conflict. But his protest, conveniently published post-retirement, carries no real cost.
There was no threat of court-martial, no docked pension, no institutional backlash. He had already decided to step away, with his benefits secured. That matters, because real acts of courage — particularly within the military — often come at a steep personal price.
Compare this to the 8,000+ service members who were forcibly separated for resisting COVID-19 mandates. Many of them left without pensions, without honors, and in some cases, without clear paths to civilian employment. Their dissent came at real cost. No op-ed. No fanfare. No lucrative second career waiting on the other side.
Krugman’s silence during the Biden administration’s chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal is also telling. If moral clarity truly guided his service, where was the outrage when allies were abandoned and Marines killed during the hasty exit from Kabul? Why no resignation then? Why not speak when it mattered — when the consequences weren’t hypothetical?
Even more striking is what Krugman didn’t say. There was no mention of the erosion of constitutional protections within the military justice system.
No mention of unlawful command influence or the failure to declare war before sending troops into battle for decades. His essay lacks not only specificity in condemning Trump’s alleged misdeeds, but also the broader institutional failures that have plagued the military for a generation.
In the end, the essay reads more like a carefully crafted communications strategy than a gut-wrenching moral decision. It is the protest of someone already safe, speaking from the sidelines after the final whistle. That’s not courage — it’s commentary.