The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Military.com. If you would like to submit your own commentary, please send your article to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.^[1] for consideration.

The email came at 7:30 at night on a Friday, an awkward time for an awkward message.

"Please see important attachment regarding your employment status with the Small Business Administration," it read.

That attachment detailed my termination with a two-week notice, explaining that, as a probationary employee, I had "failed to demonstrate fitness for continued federal employment."

I had served in the Air Force as an intelligence analyst, separating in 2010, and had signed up in the summer of 2024 to continue my public service with the U.S. Small Business Administration, America's only agency dedicated to supporting and uplifting the backbone of this country, small businesses. I was passionate about the work, and my supervisor had just given me a very positive performance review.

By Monday, that termination notice was rescinded, or so it seemed. The following day, I received the same termination email, this time terminating me immediately, with no notice and no severance. The next morning, I turned in my laptop and cleaned out my office, passing the same American flag I had stood in front of while being sworn into my now former position.

By the end of February, thousands of probationary employees (in their first year or two of service) had been fired across the federal workforce, each with a similar (if not identical) explanation -- poor performance. The truth? It was a sweeping, indiscriminate purge that disregarded actual job performance, efficiency or impact.

But why should you care? Why should we care?

Nearly one-third of the two-million-person federal workforce served in the military. If you're doing the math with me, that's over half a million veterans. Veterans get priority in hiring but are receiving zero protection from being fired. That's not just bad policy, it's bad faith. A community of people with special expertise in teamwork and effectiveness is a valuable asset to the government, and they should be relied upon to drive the best path forward.

Unsurprisingly, the Department of Veterans Affairs is a strong employer of veterans, more than 120,000 of them. In fact, nearly one-quarter of the VA's new hires last year were veterans, making them easy targets as probationary employees. Veterans bring unmatched experience to the VA -- as both employees and patients. These reckless cuts hit veterans twice -- first as employees, then as those relying on federal services. Not only can they find themselves unexpectedly and undeservedly laid off, but the very department designed to help them in their times of need will now be understaffed and possibly unavailable.

At the Defense Department, where thousands of layoffs have already been announced, nearly half of civilian workers are veterans.

From a business perspective, my other expertise as a prior small business owner, this is downright ironic. These indiscriminate firings, masked as an attempt to make the government more efficient, will lead to less productivity and a decrease in service availability to taxpaying Americans. In business, the bottom line is a critical measurement of health. In government, the safety and well-being of its citizens are the priority. Yet, the people who help keep us safe are being discarded in favor of a bottom line.

But there's still time. Each of us has a voice, whether written or verbally, and a representative who needs to hear it. This isn't a case of big government versus small government, red or blue. This is a case of good government, and every American deserves it, especially veterans. Call your congressperson, write your senator, and voice your concern. Call today. Demand an investigation. Ask them: "What's the plan to protect veterans?" Insist on answers.

We cannot sacrifice our nation's heroes in favor of a bottom line. If not, I can only pray for my fellow patriots when they receive that awkward email on a Friday night.

-- Chris Wicker is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, former small business owner, and workforce advocate. Most recently, he served as deputy district director for the U.S. Small Business Administration before being fired in a wave of federal workforce reductions.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nominee for the top policy job at the Pentagon acknowledged during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday that Russia invaded Ukraine and poses a significant military threat to the U.S. and Europe, but only after persistent questioning from senators on both sides of the political aisle.

Elbridge Colby on multiple occasions declined to answer directly whether Russia invaded Ukraine, saying it’s a sensitive topic and he doesn’t want to say anything that might hurt chances of peace.

But, in only one instance — when Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, pressed him, demanding, “In February 2022, did Russian forces cross the border and invade Ukraine? Yes or no? — he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that she was “describing a factual reality” that is “demonstrably true.”

Trump in recent weeks^[1] falsely blamed Ukraine for starting the three-year war^[2] that has cost tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives and called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator for not holding elections during wartime. On Friday, in a stunning Oval Office blow up, Trump berated ^[3]Zelenskyy and said he wasn’t grateful enough for America’s support^[4].

Against that backdrop, Colby also would not answer whether Russian President Vladimir Putin is a war criminal or had committed war crimes. The International Criminal Court in 2023 issued an arrest warrant^[5] for Putin for war crimes, accusing him of being personally responsible for the abductions of children from Ukraine.

And when asked about Trump's decision Monday to pause military aid ^[6]to Kyiv, Colby said the president has a plan to end the war and ensure a secure and sovereign Ukraine.

Colby, who served as deputy assistant defense secretary for strategy during the first Trump administration, also faced repeated questions from both Democratic and Republican senators on previous statements he made suggesting the U.S. could tolerate and contain a nuclear-armed Iran.

More recently his comments on the issue have evolved. And on Tuesday, in response to questions from Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and other GOP senators, he said a nuclear armed Iran “would pose an existential threat” to the U.S. and “we should deny Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

He downplayed his previous comments over the years on Iran, saying, “was my wording always appropriate? Was my precise framing always perfect? No."

Vice President JD Vance made a quick stop at the committee hearing to urge Colby's confirmation, saying the nominee has said things in the past that alienated Republicans and Democrats, and also said things that both sides would agree on. He said the nominee will be able to work with lawmakers, and added that Colby will work to restore the defense industrial base, a key goal.

In other comments during the hearing, Colby said the U.S. “should maintain the highest level of cyber vigilance and capability vis-a-vis Russia.” Asked if the U.S. should not use offensive cyberoperations against Russia, Colby said that generally any moves by Moscow should “be reciprocated.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth^[7] has paused offensive cyberoperations against Russia by U.S. Cyber Command, according to U.S. officials., who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive operations. That decision does not affect cyberoperations conducted by other agencies, including the CIA.

Colby has also made comments in the past about pulling back from commitments in the Middle East in order to focus more on China. Asked on Tuesday about threats from an array of adversaries, including China, Iran and North Korea, he said the U.S. doesn’t have a “multi-war military.”

He said the U.S. should not abandon the Middle East, there should not be a nuclear-armed Iran, Russia must not “run roughshod” over Europe and North Korea shouldn't take over South Korea.

But he said he also believes the U.S. “could be at the precipice of a major war with China” and added that the U.S. can’t deal with all of those issues at the same time. The country, he said, needs a credible plan, more resources and additional help from allies.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pressing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for answers on the Army^[1]'s handling of meal funds as questions mount over the apparent misallocation of tens of millions of dollars intended to feed soldiers.

The scrutiny follows a Military.com investigation^[2] revealing that the Army cannot account for more than $151 million deducted from troops' paychecks -- funds meant to cover meals. On Tuesday, 21 lawmakers penned a letter to Hegseth on the matter and about concerns over access to nutritious food.

At the heart of the issue is the Army's Basic Allowance for Subsistence, or BAS, a roughly $460 monthly stipend for soldiers meant to offset food costs. For many junior enlisted troops living in barracks, much of that allowance is automatically deducted to fund dining facilities. Lawmakers, however, are questioning whether those deductions are being used effectively and appropriately.

Read Next: New Marine Corps Pilot Program Aims to Reduce Burdensome Reenlistment Process^[3]

"Our service members are the best among us and expect fair compensation from their government," Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., who is leading the oversight effort, said in a statement. "If a service member is losing money from their paycheck because they are being given a meal, it is reasonable for them to expect that funding will be used only to cover the costs of providing it and to ensure it is of the highest possible quality."

Financial data from 11 of the Army's largest bases, reviewed by Military.com, revealed that only about 40% on average of the funds collected from soldiers for food was actually spent on meals, though at some bases the gap was more significant.

Officials have declined to provide figures for nearly 100 other Army garrisons, likely violating the service's own transparency rules, meaning the issue may be much more significant. Data reviewed by Military.com accounts only for 2024, yet the issue has been going on for years and across several administrations.

The publication also found numerous instances of dining facilities abruptly closing or changing hours, making it difficult for troops to access food. The Army has increasingly relied on grab-and-go kiosks^[4], a shift away from college campus-style dining facilities. But these kiosks primarily offer snacks and prepackaged meals, many of which fall short of the Army's own nutrition standards.

Lawmakers also want Hegseth to explain how the Army is providing nutritious options for soldiers, and whether the Defense Department needs additional resources for food options.

"Through your experience as a junior officer, you can empathize with the importance of a reliable, nutritious dining facility, and its importance to morale," lawmakers wrote to Hegseth. "You are now ultimately responsible for the welfare of these service members."

Service officials interviewed by Military.com were unable to answer detailed questions on how the Army decides food budgets, noting only that budgets are based on the volume of soldiers using the dining facilities. But that data does not take into account the number of soldiers eligible to use the facilities or how many are on base at a given time.

Army officials declined to comment for this story.

"They haven't given a clear explanation on what's being done with food; some of their responses have been really confusing," one congressional staffer told Military.com on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, referring to behind-the-scenes conversations between the Army and Capitol Hill on the matter. "There's some fundamental confusion of how money works."

Head count numbers do not account for long-term training events or deployments^[5], when troops are away from base facilities -- sending a false signal to Army planners that troops are choosing not to use their meal entitlements.

A 2022 report^[6] from the Government Accountability Office found that the services, with the exception of the Air Force^[7], do not adequately track how often troops make use of dining facilities.

"We found that Army food program officials do not track the extent to which service members with a meal entitlement use the entitlement and do not have plans to do so," the report noted.

Senators who signed the letter to Hegseth include Warnock; Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii; and John Hickenlooper, D-Colo.

House members who signed onto the effort include Reps. Rob Wittman, R-Va.; Jen Kiggans, R-Va.; Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif.; Don Bacon, R-Neb.; Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis.; Sanford Bishop, D-Ga.; Seth Moulton, D-Mass.; Abraham Hamadeh, R-Ariz.; John McGuire, R-Va.; Lance Gooden, R-Texas; Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J.; Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa.; Don Davis, D-N.C.; and Salud Carbajal, D-Calif.

Related: Over $151 Million Taken from Soldiers' Paychecks for Food Costs Spent Elsewhere by the Army^[8]