Blog
Published on December 17, 2025
By Kaylee Rawlins, Communications Intern
This guest post does not necessarily reflect the views or expertise of Human Rights First.
Human rights are often described as universal — protections that belong to every person simply because they are human. These rights include free speech, due process, safety, and access to justice. They are the foundation of American democracy and the very freedoms the U.S. military is sworn to defend. Yet for the service members who take that oath, these same rights can be significantly weakened or constrained in practice.
Unlike civilians, service members operate under a separate legal system (the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ), face unique restrictions on expression, and may lack the same protections against retaliation, abuse, or unsafe living conditions. These institutional differences reveal a troubling gap between the ideals of universal rights and the lived experience of those in the military.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and American constitutional traditions affirm that fundamental rights — such as free speech, a fair trial, and bodily integrity — should apply to everyone. In the U.S., civil rights movements have reinforced the idea that these protections are not privileges but fundamental entitlements.
For service members, however, this promise is complicated by the UCMJ, a separate legal regime that governs military personnel. Under the UCMJ, commanders have broad authority over discipline, and service members’ rights can be limited in the name of “order” and “readiness.” While discipline is a critical tenet in the military, this separate system often means that service members don’t enjoy the same legal protections as civilians.
One of the most visible rights gaps for service members is around speech. While civilians can openly criticize government policies or military leadership under the First Amendment, service members are subject to stricter restrictions. They risk punishment for social media posts, dissent, or public criticism of superiors.
A prominent example is Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, who in 2021 publicly criticized military leadership over the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in a viral video. He was relieved of command soon after for a “loss of trust and confidence.” Later, he pleaded guilty to six charges under the UCMJ, including contempt toward officials and disobeying orders, and was sentenced to a letter of reprimand and forfeited pay.
From a human rights perspective, this raises serious concerns: the very people defending this country are denied the same level of expressive freedom, especially when holding the powerful accountable. With commanders playing a central role in prosecutorial and disciplinary decisions, service members are less protected if they report superiors. This structure has been deeply critiqued, particularly around cases of sexual assault.
In 2021, the Independent Review Commission (IRC) on Military Sexual Assault issued a report titled “Hard Truths and the Duty to Change.” The IRC found systemic failures in the justice system: many survivors feared retaliation, commanders exerted excessive control over the process, and there was a lack of trust in the existing system to deliver justice. The report recommended, among other reforms, modifying the UCMJ to lessen commander control over prosecutions.
More recently, the Military Justice Review Panel (MJRP) echoed these calls for change in its 2024 report, assessing how to better align military justice with fairness and equal protection under the law. Without these reforms, service members — particularly survivors of assault — face a justice system that may prioritize the chain of command over their rights.
Rights to safe living conditions and health care are fundamental, yet many service members and their families also report serious lapses. Privatized on-base housing, for example, has been under scrutiny; a 2019 survey by the Military Family Advisory Network found that over half of respondents living in such housing reported dangerous conditions — including mold, lead, poor water quality, and pest infestations. Despite these reports, many families said formal complaints were ignored, and accountability was lacking.
On the mental health front, barriers persist. Despite rising rates of mental health diagnoses among service members (including anxiety and PTSD), stigma remains a formidable barrier to seeking help. According to a 2025 Defense Health Agency report, diagnoses of mental health disorders have increased sharply in recent years. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report also identified perceived stigma, such as fears that seeking help could harm one’s career, as a significant reason service members avoid care.
The Department of Defense has taken steps to address this: in 2023, it expanded the “Real Warriors Campaign” to reduce stigma and encourage help-seeking. But many argue that these measures are not yet sufficient to ensure that service members enjoy the same right to a safe, healthy life. This contradiction raises serious questions about consistency. If the United States is to claim leadership on human rights, it must confront the ways it restricts those same rights for its defenders.
Here are concrete reforms that could help close the gap between ideals and reality:
Service members risk their lives to defend the rights and freedoms that define our democracy — and yet, in many respects, they do not fully enjoy those rights themselves. Discipline and order are undeniably vital in a military context, but they should not be mutually exclusive with or come at the cost of basic human dignity.
If the U.S. is to be a credible champion of human rights, it must lead by example — starting with how it treats those who serve. Lawmakers, military leaders, and human rights advocates must work together to ensure that service members are not only defenders of freedom but full participants in it.
