-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Whenever I started to make waves as a passionately defiant young adult, my Costa Rica-born mother would utter a phrase familiar to Latin American women across the diaspora: “Calladita te ves más bonita.” Loosely translated, it means “You look prettier when you’re quiet,” a premise rooted in machismo culture and the notion that opinionated, strong-willed women should know when to stay silent.
For many military spouses like me, there has been an unspoken expectation to follow a similar principle. For decades in the military-connected community, it was considered taboo to openly disagree with the current political administration, criticize the defense industrial complex or question strategic wartime decisions, even when those actions went against our core values.
Supporting the troops also meant supporting whatever conflict our nation was involved in at the time, full stop. Trying to untangle these two concepts would require an impossible amount of mental gymnastics not even Simone Biles could perform.
I’ve always found it ironic that the very people with the most at stake — the literal lives hanging in the balance when officials make foolhardy decisions — are the same individuals who are barred from expressing themselves.
I admittedly understand how this idea of a government-critiquing military spouse might seem confusing to outsiders. How can we support the servicemember we love yet publicly oppose an illegal war and the administration waging it? The answer: very easily. Today’s military spouses are not the stereotypical ladies who lunch. For one, not all military spouses are female: While 85% of military spouses are women, the number of male spouses continues to grow.
Statistically, military spouses are highly educated professionals, civically engaged and have access to a powerful organizing tool that previous generations did not: social media. Although active-duty servicemembers and retirees must abide by the Hatch Act, which prohibits them from engaging in political activity while in uniform and restricts their ability to speak freely about political topics even while on their own time, military spouses are not bound by the same rules.
Traditionally, a military spouse’s identity has been closely tied to that of their partner, causing many to hesitate in sharing opinions that might be seen as dissent out of concern for the service member’s career. This is no longer the case for the modern military spouse.
So when the Trump administration announced this week the creation of the President’s Military Spouse Commission, chaired by Jennifer Rauchet, wife of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, military spouses online immediately began to dig into the details of the executive order.
The commission was ostensibly designed to address the challenges of military life, including high rates of military spouse unemployment and difficulties accessing childcare, housing, healthcare and education. In reality, after military spouses in group chats across the country examined the commission’s roster of members — a veritable list of flag officer spouses, the spouses of political appointees and limited senior enlisted spouses — the White House announcement appeared to be nothing more than another exercise in performative advocacy. Notably absent from the commission’s membership are male military spouses and same-sex spouses, further solidifying a lack of diversity.
Rather than feel like the commission was an earnest effort to alleviate some of the service-related burdens military families face, military spouses were more disappointed than encouraged about its ability to enact meaningful policy changes. Military spouses can share their stories with the commission via its official website. Hopefully these comments and concerns will be reflected in the commission’s annual reports.
Dozens of military spouse influencers have voiced their collective frustration since the announcement, describing the commission as just one more example of the unpaid labor they often do for the benefit of the force, at the expense of the frequently overextended military spouse.
Other spouses noted that if the administration genuinely wanted to address the issues it seemingly aims to solve, the commission’s makeup would better reflect the typical military spouse, who is more familiar with problems such as food insecurity, lengthy deployments and the financial struggles associated with military spouse unemployment.
As a former federally employed military spouse whose position was eliminated during the Department of Government Efficiency purge last spring, I find it particularly absurd that the executive order establishing the commission claims to have increased remote and flexible work options for federally employed military spouses when the Office of Personnel Management and my agency did not honor such an agreement when it was our time to move to our next duty station. I was told I could resign, risk being fired or commute the nearly nine-hour round trip every day to meet the in-office requirement. Ultimately, I chose to resign.
Although the norms have shifted and more military spouses are comfortable vocalizing our disapproval of the current administration and its policies, doing so is still not without risk.
The same military spouses who have rejected the administration’s handling of the Iran War, its manipulation of casualty figures and its disregard for the separation of church and state with Bible-laden social media posts on official government accounts have been doxxed and harassed online for sharing their opinions, and even received death threats.
If being a woke military spouse means a willingness to unapologetically speak truth to power, especially when our loved ones’ lives are on the frontline, then I’m wide awake.
Melissa A. Sullivan is a former spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency. She lives in Virginia with her active-duty military spouse.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that military spouses have long been pressured to remain quiet, echoing the machismo-infused admonition “you look prettier when you’re quiet” and mirroring historic norms in which officials told Vietnam-era POW/MIA wives to “keep quiet” rather than publicly challenge war policy.[2]
It contends that today’s military spouses no longer fit the dated stereotype of apolitical “ladies who lunch,” noting that many are highly educated professionals, increasingly include men, and are civically engaged citizens who can organize and share information through social media in ways earlier generations could not.[4][5]
The piece stresses that, unlike active-duty service members and retirees who must adhere to restrictions under the Hatch Act and Defense Department directives governing political activity, military spouses themselves are not subject to official limits on their speech and retain broad constitutional rights to attend protests, speak about foreign policy and participate in electoral politics.[8][4]
It maintains that supporting a loved one in uniform does not require endorsing every war or administration, asserting that spouses can simultaneously “support the troops” and publicly oppose what they view as illegal or harmful conflicts, a stance echoed by advocacy initiatives that encourage military families to vote and organize around a more principled U.S. engagement abroad.[4][5]
The article sharply criticizes the Trump administration’s President’s Military Spouse Commission, arguing that its membership—dominated by spouses of flag officers and political appointees with limited representation from senior enlisted families—appears performative rather than representative of the broader community.[10][11]
It notes that male spouses and same-sex spouses are notably absent from the commission, and suggests that this lack of demographic and socioeconomic diversity undercuts the body’s ability to address everyday issues such as food insecurity, lengthy deployments, inadequate childcare and the financial strain of spouse unemployment that typical military families experience.[10][11]
The piece portrays the commission’s invitation for spouses to submit stories via its official website as yet another example of unpaid labor expected of military partners, arguing that many online influencers and grassroots organizers feel they are being asked to contribute expertise and emotional effort without clear evidence that their input will translate into concrete policy change.[3][10]
Drawing on personal experience as a former federal employee whose telework arrangement collapsed during a government reorganization, the article disputes claims in the executive order that recent policies have expanded remote and flexible work options for military spouses, pointing to inconsistencies between official rhetoric and how agencies implement those commitments in practice.[11][8]
Finally, the piece underscores that speaking out remains risky: it reports that outspoken spouses who condemn the administration’s handling of the Iran War or its use of overtly religious imagery on official government accounts have faced online harassment, doxxing and death threats, yet it embraces a “woke military spouse” identity that prioritizes truth-telling and accountability when loved ones’ lives are at stake, situating this activism within a longer tradition of spouses “speaking truth to power” to protect families.[2][1][5]
Different views on the topic
In contrast, administration statements and supporting commentary present the President’s Military Spouse Commission as a substantive effort to strengthen military readiness by improving the quality of life for spouses and families, highlighting its mandate to address challenges in housing, employment, childcare, healthcare, education and deployment support rather than viewing it as merely symbolic.[11][6]
Official messaging emphasizes that the commission creates a direct advisory channel between military families and the president, with a structured process to gather spouse input, develop recommendations and deliver annual and final reports before the body sunsets, suggesting that formal mechanisms backed by federal resources can elevate concerns more effectively than informal social media campaigns alone.[6][10][11]
Some advocates and spouse leaders point to existing models in which “lead spouses” serve as advisors and ambassadors within units, offering mentorship and relaying family needs to commanders, as evidence that working within official channels can yield real influence and improvements in policy and support programs.[1][3]
Military family organizations likewise highlight examples of successful, structured advocacy—such as spouses working with national groups to lobby on Capitol Hill for legislation benefiting troops and families—as a reason to engage commissions and advisory boards rather than dismiss them outright, arguing that these venues can amplify grassroots experiences into federal action.[9][3]
Additionally, experts on military spouse speech rights underscore that spouses are not bound by Defense Department rules governing political activity and may freely attend rallies, support candidates and engage in issue advocacy, but they also caution that such activism should be conducted in a way that clearly separates personal views from any volunteer or semi-official roles to avoid confusion about whether a statement represents an individual or a unit.[8]
Commentators who focus on speaking “truth to power” from within the military community advise that criticism of leaders and institutions be framed carefully—avoiding personal attacks on officers and respecting existing regulations—to prevent undermining professional norms or violating ethical boundaries, thereby expressing concern about the potential downsides of highly confrontational or partisan public campaigns.[7]
Historical accounts of the League of Wives describe how some officials and military leaders initially pressed POW/MIA spouses to remain silent on torture and diplomacy out of fear that public criticism could complicate negotiations or damage morale, a perspective that continues to inform more traditional views that spouses should provide quiet support and avoid public challenges to wartime decision-making or senior leadership.[2]
Taken together, these opposing perspectives see commissions, advisory roles and carefully structured advocacy as compatible with meaningful change, and suggest that while military spouses’ rights to speak out are clear, the most effective and least divisive path may lie in engaging formal processes rather than centering activism on public condemnation of specific administrations or conflicts.[1][3][6][11]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
