Conscientious Objectors Trying to Flee Military Skyrocket Under Trump

An increasing number of American service members are becoming uncomfortable with their orders under President Trump, and are trying to leave the military.

MS NOW reports that the number of conscientious objectors in the military is growing, with many citing violations of international law. The GI Rights Hotline at the Quaker House has seen a spike in interest from service members who see their orders as immoral. The Center on Conscience and War, which helps service members file applications as objectors, has also seen applications go up by six times since the Iran war began in February, higher than any other time in the last 25 years.

Normally, the organization has about 50 objectors in a year, said Mike Prysner, who runs a hotline at the CCW, but since February, Prysner said the organization has assisted about 140 applicants.

“The Iran war was really the breaking point for them when they realized that they had to take action to make sure that they did not participate in something that they were going to regret for the rest of their lives,” Prysner said.

MS NOW spoke to one military member anonymously, who said that they believed their superiors were targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran, which violates the Geneva Conventions.

“I realized there’s no way that you could interpret the international laws as saying that you’re allowed to strike civilian bridges, but in reality, if the president wants to blow up bridges, the lawyers will find a way to say that it is OK to do it, and nobody anywhere up or down the chain of command ever stops and says no,” the service member said.

It’s not just the Iran war that has service members questioning their morals. Some military personnel are troubled by U.S. airstrikes on so-called “drug boats” in the Southern hemisphere under Operation Southern Spear, believing they violate international law.

Another anonymous service member told MS NOW that they weren’t sure if the weapons they loaded onto planes on an aircraft carrier in the Caribbean Sea would be used against civilians, and they began to believe they were causing harm in their duties. Those concerns are not unfounded, as the Department of Defense has admitted that it does not know who is aboard the boats it is bombing.

In all, MS NOW spoke to five anonymous members of the military who object to their orders under this administration, and they want no part of it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to fire numerous top generals has put America’s military between a rock and a hard place in its war against Iran.

The Army has been without a chief of staff since Hegseth fired General Randy George in April; he has forced out at least three senior officers who were believed to be in the running to be George’s replacement, according to current and former officials that spoke with The New York Times.

All in all, Hegseth has forced out at least half a dozen senior officers, according to inside sources that spoke with the Times, who say this purge has damaged the service’s expertise and has eroded its top ranks.

Those affected include General James Mingus, the Army vice chief of staff whom Hegseth forced out last year with little explanation, and General David Hodne, whom Hegseth hired and then fired just eight months later.

Other axed officers include Major General William Green, General Christopher Donahue, and General James Slife, the Air Force vice chief of staff.

General CQ Brown Jr. was also fired from his position as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the early weeks of Donald Trump’s second term, and General David Allvin retired early last fall.

Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll, the Army’s top civilian leader, is also believed to be on his way out in the coming months, according to the Times, which reported that Driscoll has already moved out of the large family house he was renting outside Washington.

“Hollowing out the most battle-tested and most lethal, proven leaders in a time of war means troops are less safe and we’re less likely to win,” Representative Pat Ryan, Democrat of New York and a former Army intelligence officer, told the daily newspaper. “We’re doing generational damage to the sense that the military is an apolitical trusted organization that swears an oath to the Constitution, not to a president.”

Hegseth’s decision to undermine top military leadership has left a definitive vacuum in the highest echelons of the Army. At the time of Hegseth’s confirmation, there were 10 four-star generals on active duty. Now there are just five—the smallest number to lead the service in years.

Meanwhile, the Army’s Middle East bases have been battered by Iran’s seemingly endless supply of cheap drones since late February. The conflict has so far killed at least 18 U.S. service members and wounded more than 776 others. It has also taken an enormous toll on daily life in the U.S., inflaming the cost of practically everything as shipping companies contend with rising oil costs.

The Financial Times reported Tuesday that farmers in America’s Corn Belt region are facing their toughest economic crisis in 40 years. Last month, the American Farm Bureau Federation, an industry group, projected that without government intervention, farmers growing nine principal crops will face $32 billion in losses in 2027, after losing an estimated $31 billion in 2026.

“This is the worst financial downturn in the sector since the 1980s,” John Hansen, president of Nebraska Farmers Union, told FT.

Matt Bailey, who grows corn and soybeans in eastern Nebraska, told FT the strain was a result of rising input costs. Bailey said that 10 years ago, phosphorus-rich fertilizer used at planting time cost $470 per ton; the same product now costs more than $900. “Where do you start with that? How do you budget for that?” Bailey said.

The alarm bells have been blaring for months. Trump’s war with Iran halted trade through the Strait of Hormuz just as farmers in the Northern Hemisphere would typically order fertilizer for the upcoming planting season. The American Farm Bureau Federation has warned that the shock to the fertilizer supply chain would drive prices even higher and threaten food security and national security.

That’s not the only reason farmers may not be happy with Trump. Last week, the American Farm Bureau Federation voiced concerns that Trump’s plan to import tariff-free beef would create long-term damage to the already struggling American beef industry. On Monday, the group urged the Trump administration to resume trade talks with Canada after Trump detonated negotiations.

Trump has historically relied on the support of Corn Belt voters, where farming-dependent counties backed him by an average of 78 percent in 2024. Now, with Trump’s approval rating reaching record lows and midterm elections just around the corner, the president may need to act quickly if he hopes to hold onto their support—and his Republican congressional majorities.

With hours on the clock until polls close, Republicans are betting that Senator Darline Graham—the temporary fill-in for her late brother, Lindsey Graham—will be iced out of South Carolina’s GOP runoff race. Graham is up against Representative Ralph Norman, a five-term lawmaker who has represented the Palmetto State in various legislative capacities since 2005.

The junior Graham took the reins of her sibling’s powerful office last month, after the 71-year-old suddenly passed away from an aortic dissection. Despite having zero relevant experience or qualifications, Graham gained the president’s endorsement and was subsequently appointed by South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster.

Within the span of a few short weeks, the 62-year-old undertook a gambit to make her interim responsibilities more permanent, throwing her name on the ballot to be formally selected by the state electorate. The money poured in behind her, with chief executives, lobbyists, and prominent Republican donors pumping thousands of dollars into her nascent campaign, violating the weekly thresholds set by the Federal Election Commission.

The country was stunned earlier this month when Graham pulled ahead of more than half a dozen candidates in the Republican primary—but now, some Republicans believe that may have been the zenith of her political career.

Public opinion on Graham plummeted last week when she flopped on a softball debate question regarding Taiwan, confessing that “national security is not my thing.” In the same debate, Graham forgot the population of her own state, falsely claiming that South Carolina’s population is 50 million people—more than New York and Florida combined. Fact check: The state’s population is fewer than six million people.

Multiple Republican sources told NOTUS that, despite Donald Trump’s efforts, the sexagenarian is increasingly unlikely to win South Carolina’s primary runoff.

“You’re running a campaign with a virtual unknown that took on all of her brother’s unfavorables without any of the goodwill that her brother has in a very short-sprint special election,” one Republican operative told NOTUS. Exactly why Graham is in a bad position in the race “isn’t rocket science,” according to the source.

A lack of reliable or neutral polling has left much of the country’s electoral odds in the dark, including in South Carolina.

“Tomorrow’s election is the biggest black box in recent memory here,” a South Carolina–based Republican operative told NOTUS.

Whoever pulls through the runoff Tuesday evening will eventually have to face off against Democrat Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, in the November general election. (Though the last time South Carolina elected a Democrat to the Senate was in 1998.)

But unlike other midterm-bound candidates who have been advised by party leaders to separate themselves from the president’s negative polling, Graham still needs to ride Trump’s brand if she wants to win big.

“Her only good is hyper-engaged Trump voters. There is no Darline Graham voter,” the operative told NOTUS. “No one’s voting for Darline because of Darline.”

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins refused to speak on what countries President Trump plans to import tariff-free beef from amid growing backlash over his emergency effort to lower beef prices as midterm elections approach. 

“About the beef imports, what specific countries have been in talks with the U.S. about stepping up those beef imports, aside from Mexico?” a reporter asked Rollins on Tuesday.

“I am not privy to talk about that. I think the conversations are still going on, and that’s Ambassador [Jamieson] Greer who’s finalizing what exactly that looks like, and I think the president’s involved in that as well,” she said.

It’s certainly alarming that Rollins is unable to be transparent and honest with Americans about where the cheap beef is coming from. 

“The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture is not privy to talk about 300,000 metric tons of food that, according to the President, is right now making its way to the dinner tables of countless ordinary Americans?” The New Republic’s Greg Sargent wrote on X. “Isn’t she curious about this? Didn’t she ask Trump for clarification of it?”

This beef import is something Trump cooked up to offset the cost-of-living crisis exacerbated by his war on Iran, as well as a historic cattle shortage—although the Trump administration blames former President Biden for that.

“As we work to rebuild this herd and help our ranchers, for the next 90 days, the United States will allow up to 300,000 metric tons of product for ground beef to be imported with no out of quota tariff.  We have a commitment that this beef will be sold at 25 percent below current market prices,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. “This deal will reduce prices for Americans while giving space for our Great American Beef Herd to grow again.”

Many within his own party disagree, voicing concerns about American beef farmers being priced out of the market by these mystery foreign importers. 

“Americans want U.S. beef on the table—not foreign imports. Wyoming ranchers produce the highest quality beef in the world. Our ranchers don’t ask for special treatment. They simply want a fair marketplace,” Republican Senator John Barrasso wrote. “It needs to be easier—not harder—for Wyoming ranchers to feed America. I will continue to fight for policies that strengthen Wyoming beef producers and invest in the American cattle herd.”

“I want to lower prices but this is a bad idea. Iowa cattle producers raise the highest quality beef in the world. They’ve faced tough market conditions for years, and increasing beef imports would lead to more uncertainty and instability for our farmers,” Iowa Representative Ashley Hinson added. “We should be focused on cutting red tape for cattle producers, lowering the cost of production, and supporting market-based solutions to support Iowa producers and lower costs for consumers.”

Actual farmers seem to feel similarly as well.

“I believe that this is a raw deal by the president. You know, here’s the president who keeps making the announcement that he loves farmers, he loves cattlemen, and then undermines us with that 300,000 metric tons of foreign beef that we don’t even know where it’s coming from,” farmer, activist, and National Black Farmers Association founder John W. Boyd Jr. said Tuesday on MS NOW.  

“[This is] the worst time in history for America’s farmers, going out losing our farms every day, and the president makes another sour deal, and punches the American farmers in the face.”