Thursday, the Washington Post carried an op-ed by a recently retired Marine Officer titled, Opinion | I resigned from the Marine Corps because of President Trump. I had ignored it at the time because, having lived through the Bush 43 presidency and Trump 1.0, I've become jaded about military officers suddenly retiring because "Chimpy McHitler" or "Orange Man Bad," and then ending up with a gig as contributor to some leftist media outlet. Several large follower accounts immediately pimped this one on X, and it rated its own article in The Guardian, Marine colonel quits after 24 years, citing concern for future of US under Trump | US military | The Guardian.
In 250 years of U.S. history, only two other senior officers have publicly resigned over a president’s contempt for the Constitution.
— Phil Ehr (@PhilEhr) October 17, 2025
This is a landmark moment, and a test of whether those who swore an oath to defend the Constitution still have the courage to honor it. pic.twitter.com/lyJbSpFQ9b
If there is one thing that I've learned, it is that when this kind of attention is paid to a minor event, such as the retirement of a Marine colonel, something larger is at foot. In this case, I suspect that Colonel Doug Krugman will become increasingly visible in the media and used to make the case that Donald Trump is so detestable that no man of honor could possibly follow him.
Krugman starts his story with President Trump's charge to the audience at the September 30 meeting called by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth at Quantico; Big: President Trump Speaks to Military Leaders at Quantico – RedState. "If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room — of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future.”
In Krugman's telling, he became disenchanted with Trump on January 6, 2021. It crystallized in January 2025.
My first reservations were about promises and actions that I thought were morally wrong even if they were possibly legal. The Constitution gives the president the power to pardon, but pardoning roughly 1,600 of those who tried to violently overthrow the results of an election didn’t help defend the Constitution.
From there, he goes on to some patently dishonest accusations. He engages in falsehood when he claims:
Worse than immorality, however, has been President Trump’s willingness to disregard the law and Constitution to achieve his goals. When asked in May about the Fifth Amendment requirements for due process and if he needed to uphold the Constitution as president, the first words out of his mouth were “I don’t know.”
For clarity, I'm providing the interview clip. Trump is asked if he is defying the Supreme Court, and he says, "No."
KRISTEN WELKER:: So let's talk about this, because obviously, you've had a back and forth with the Supreme Court. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court directed your administration to facilitate the return, you've talked about this in the past, of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, from a prison in El Salvador, whose deportation your administration called an "administrative error." You said in a recent interview you could bring him back but you won't. Are you defying the Supreme Court, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP: No. I'm relying on the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who's very capable, doing a great job. Because I'm not involved in the legality or the illegality. I have lawyers to do that and that's why I have a great DOJ. We have a great one. We had a very corrupt one before. Now we have a great one. And they're not viewing the decision the way you said it. They don't view it that way at all. They think it's a totally different decision.
The due process question arises much later.
KRISTEN WELKER: Your secretary of state says everyone who's here, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I don't know. I'm not, I’m not a lawyer. I don't know.
KRISTEN WELKER: Well, the Fifth Amendment says as much.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I don't know. It seems – it might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials. We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.
The context of the conversation is about the "Maryland Man," Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Garcia had already had a due-process hearing in an immigration proceeding and was under a removal order. The question was whether he could litigate that removal order in an Article III court. In context, Trump's answer is correct.
He goes on to mewl about being "stuck between competing orders with no clear answer. When the president’s orders push or cross legal limits and put commanders in these situations, cohesion within our military is at risk." The fact is that an Appeals Court ruled against the judge in that case, and if Krugman is so insistent on defending the Constitution, he should have the integrity to note that Trump is the commander-in-chief, that he has the right, codified in federal law, to federalize the National Guard, without a governor's assent. And from the time we are baby lieutenants, we are taught that all orders are presumed legal. If you have doubts, you ask for clarification. If you disagree with the clarification, resign your commission. It is not permissible to make your own findings of legality.
And there is more of the same. The complaints revolve around Trump's ad-libbed statements and studiously avoid actual actions.
Perhaps the most dishonest part of this story starts in the headline. I know Krugman didn't write it, but I also know that he was shown the headline and didn't object. Krugman did not "resign" from the military. He had 24 years service, and he retired, as he clearly says in the article, "I respect those who still serve, many of whom have service contracts and can’t simply retire like I did."
Will Krugman become the media's go-to guy for military insight? I think it is unlikely. There is no evidence that Krugman ever objected to one of the greatest U.S. military blunders and tragedies since World War II. That is the evacuation of Afghanistan and the Abbey Gate bombing. One Marine officer did come out against the institutional incompetence and he ended up in a Navy brig.
Hey Doug Krugman
— where there’s a WiLL There’s a WaVe (@WhereWave) October 18, 2025
Show me where you stood when Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller ACTUALLY put it all on the line, and then I'll retract my take on your pathetic, self-serving, manipulative preening
To you & every effeminate U.S. diplomat who walked to their pen$ion under Bush & Trump🖕 pic.twitter.com/0VlXNJUqzC
There is no evidence that Krugman ever stood up against the patently illegal order to impose an experimental vaccine upon his troops. Several thousand troops put their careers and livelihoods on the line to protest. Not Krugman.
It probably would have been useful for him to cite a SINGLE UNLAWFUL ORDER he was asked to follow or a SINGLE ILLEGAL ACTION that violated the Constitution.
— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) October 18, 2025
Interestingly, he did not.
Because none exist.
This is a political hack using the fact that he is one of the handful of… https://t.co/RfSO6l3vyR
I also think that once Krugman's contemporaries begin talking, we'll find more than one skeleton. Krugman was "frocked," that is, temporarily promoted to colonel in February 2023. (Frocked and not even kissed, as the saying goes.)
Congratulations to Doug Krugman on your frocking to Colonel in the @USMC!
— U.S. Embassy Singapore (@USEmbassySG) February 16, 2023
Thank you to you and your amazing family for your service here in Singapore. We wish you and your family the best at your onward assignment. pic.twitter.com/YoEruBqe2t
What is significant is that he never commanded a battalion, despite serving as a battalion executive officer. And Krugman did not serve long enough as a colonel to retire in that grade; see 10 U.S. Code § 1370. Being frocked in February 2023 meant that retiring before February 2026 would entail a reduction in grade to lieutenant colonel unless the Secretary of War or the President waived the requirement. In this case, I think it is safe to say that it did not happen, and so it is fair for us to wonder why. Was he truly offended? Or was there some sort of contretemps that torpedoed his career, and this is his cover story and retirement strategy?
To make the timeline even more clear, Krugman's LinkedIn page indicates he spent August and September on pre-retirement leave. The Marines require that retirement requests be submitted at least 6 months before the desired retirement date. That shows he decided to retire before March 30. So the hooha with Trump/s NBC interview and federalizing Guardsmen took place after Krugman had submitted his application to retire.
What we see here is the secular version of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Cheap Grace.": Krugman didn't resign; he retired. I suspect that, even though the retirement decision caused him a demotion, he didn't have a choice in the matter. He took no risks. He refused to take a stand when he should have. In short, he sacrificed nothing and is trying to convert that nothing into a career opportunity.
The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this. Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member