Government Accountability Project military whistleblowing guide

The Government Accountability Project has released a Military Whistleblowing Guide to help military personnel understand their whistleblowing rights and protections. GAP helped write and amend the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. Last year, it realized how few resources existed explaining the mechanics of what whistleblowing looks like for service members. "This guide’s our attempt to fill that gap by walking through the laws, how they’re enforced, and what to expect when a service member needs to report wrongdoing or challenge retaliation."

How's this for an op-ed headline: "Lt Samuel Kamalesan’s dismissal for religious stand shows colonial mindset. Army must end it"

Lt Gen (ret) H.S. Panag of the Indian Army has written this thoughtful column about a recent Supreme Court case involving religious observance in the armed forces. Excerpt:

Since around 1990, religion has been dominating the national discourse. It has polarised politics and society, and there has been a very assertive and visible resurgence of the majority religion in the public domain. The minorities, forever perceiving an existential threat, have followed suit.

Despite the younger generation of the armed forces being a product of this society, the macro-level secular military ethos, rules and regulations, and military law have prevented any adverse fallout, even with the flawed composition and religious practices.

However, there should be no doubt that the secular military ethos is under stress, which is compounded by the unethical conduct of a section of the military hierarchy.

Either for personal gains in the form of promotions or post-retirement benefits, or what is even more disturbing, due to conviction, a number of senior officers are publicly identifying with political ideology seeped in civilisational past and religion. They are literally in competition with each other to be seen in religious places, hobnobbing with religious leaders, linking military events to mythological religious past, and giving new religious names to organisations.

This is a very dangerous trend for an institution in which it is expected that a soldier shed his personal beliefs and identity to be subsumed by the organisation’s collective apolitical and secular ethos.

Former JAGs Working Group

The Former JAGs Working Group has today launched its website. You can find it here. From the home page:

A number of former and retired judge advocates (JAGs) established the Former JAGs Working Group in February 2025 following the Secretary of Defense’s unprecedented removal of the Army, Navy, and Air Force Judge Advocates General. Originally formed to alert all Americans about that event’s broader adverse impact on the role and rule of law in the military and to counter its effective dismantling of established legal guardrails within the Department of Defense, today our coalition of former military judge advocates is dedicated to serving as an independent, public-service resource grounded in the laws governing the use of the U.S. Armed Forces. Members served on active duty and in the reserve components of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, as well as in civilian attorney and leadership positions in the Department of Defense.

The materials presented on this site reflect and incorporate the legal and ethical standards, reasoning, and methodologies JAGs traditionally use when advising commanders on the legality of military actions. Although all factual assumptions rely exclusively on public information, the legal principles articulated in each document, interview, and essay are the same ones that guide real-world operational decision-making.

By publishing these briefs, the Former JAGs Working Group hopes to help policymakers, journalists, and the public evaluate whether current and future uses of the U.S. military are rooted in objective analysis, good-faith arguments, and solid legal principles. Where such rigorous review is absent, these materials are also intended to help identify and measure the likely risks to civilian control of the military, adherence to the rule of law, and the integrity of national security decision-making.

Please share the website with friends and colleagues.

Trump's on-again/off-again threats to seize Greenland

Just Security has this hypothetical legal review of possible U.S. military action to seize Greenland. The authors are Daniel Maurer, Steven J. Lepper, Alberto J. Mora, Franklin D. Rosenblatt, and the Editor. Excerpt:

In summary, neither the Constitution nor any domestic federal law authorizes the President to use the U.S. military and armed force to occupy or annex Greenland without the consent of Denmark or a U.N. Security Council Resolution. By using military force against a fellow member of NATO, the United States would effectively withdraw from theNorth Atlantic Treaty; without an Act of Congress or consent by two-thirds of the Senate, such a withdrawal would violate a U.S. federal statute.

By violating both constitutional and statutory law, any order issued outside the legal authority of the President or Secretary of Defense to employ the U.S. military to occupy or annex Greenland by force or threat of force without the consent of Denmark would be an unlawful order. Moreover, by constituting an act of “aggression” and “use of force” in violation of the UN Charter, any order to employ the U.S. military to occupy or annex Greenland by force or threat of force without the consent of Denmark would be an unlawful order

Inconsistent DoD policy on medical separations

Jack Kaminsky, “Yes, And…”: Federal Court Rebukes Pentagon, Orders New Look At Soldier’s PTSD Retirement Claim. 16 January 2026.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims

has struck a blow against a Pentagon policy regarding how military boards evaluate mental health claims, ordering the Army to take a second, harder look at a veteran’s request for medical retirement.

In a decision handed down Thursday, Judge Armando O. Bonilla of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) failed to properly evaluate the case of Nathan D. White, a former soldier seeking to convert his disability separation into a medical retirement. The distinction is financially significant: a medical retirement offers lifelong pension payments, while a separation provides only a one-time lump sum.

The ruling in White v. United States specifically targeted a 2024 Pentagon policy directive—known as the "Vazirani Memo"—which instructed military boards to apply "liberal consideration" to discharge upgrades but not to medical fitness determination.

Judge Bonilla rejected that separation as "contradictory and unworkable."

White's case has been remanded to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for a do-over, with some detailed instructions on what that do-over must address and how that must be documented.