Riddle Me This: Why Can a Felon Who Was Convicted Be Commanding the U.S. Military When They Can’t Even Serve or Bag Groceries?Donald Trump will be taking the oath of office once again on January 20, 2025 and will become the 47th President of the United States. This time, though, he will be doing it as a convicted felon. In May 2024, Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records—in an unprecedented situation in American history. And yet, through all of this, he will take office as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military on Earth.Pause and think about that.

A man who has 34 felony convictions is about to become the commander of every branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. He will command generals, admirals, and all soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. He will have command of nuclear weapons and will make decisions capable of bringing nations to war. But because of his criminal background, this same man would be prohibited from enlisting in any branch of the military. In fact, his felony convictions would bar him from holding most normal jobs that Americans do every day.

How can this be?

A Nation of Double Standards

Think about the many Americans trying to piece their lives back together after a felony conviction. Opportunities are few and far between for them. Many corporations have strict hiring policies that screen out applicants with criminal records. Let’s take a closer look:
Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, will hire those with felony convictions, though they will first conduct a thorough background check and determine the nature of the offense. Some felonies — above all, theft or fraud — can preclude an applicant even from stocking shelves.
Hy-Vee, a Midwestern supermarket chain, reviews applications on a case-by-case basis but may decline someone convicted of serious offenses, such as fraud or financial crimes.

The hiring practices of Casey’s General Stores, a convenience store chain that operates throughout the Midwest, are impossible to find as the company’s publicized information is scanty, but the industry tends to bar felons with specific criminal backgrounds from working within their stores.

Banks, which are regulated under stringent federal laws, have long prohibited hiring for anyone with a conviction tied to dishonesty or breach of trust. While recent reforms such as the Fair Hiring in Banking Act have loosened some of the restrictions, banks still engage in extensive background checks and routinely turn away applicants with convictions tied to fraud.

Even Chick-fil-A and KFC are reluctant to hire people who have certain types of felony convictions — especially those involving financial dishonesty or violence.
Think about that: A man who has been convicted of 34 felonies for falsifying business records couldn’t get a job as a cashier at Walmart, handle cash at Casey’s or dish out fries at KFC — but he can have the nuclear codes and command the U.S. military.

How does this make sense?

Who’s a soldier and who isn’t? Military’s standards vs the president’s exemption
Honor, discipline, and integrity are non-negotiable in the United States military. It takes just one felony conviction to make a person ineligible to enlist. Waivers do exist, but they’re rare and usually only for non-violent crimes. The reasoning is fair: The armed forces and the intelligence community cannot literally risk putting weapons, sensitive information, or lives in the hands of people who have demonstrated criminal tendencies.

But the Commander in Chief is immune to such scrutiny.

The requirements in the Constitution for the presidency are shockingly low: be a natural-born citizen; be at least 35 years old; have lived in the U.S. for 14 years. That’s it. No background check. No ethical review. No felony convictions disqualify a candidate. But this basic lack of scrutiny creates a system whereby convicted felons can take charge of the military, and regular Americans can’t get jobs in retail, food service, or banking. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of national security, and ethical governance. That juxtaposition between the military and the presidency is not only illogical — it’s dangerous.

A Crisis of Trust and Integrity

What does this say to our service men and women? It is the belief of the men and women in uniform that they should be able to rely on one another — a culture that up to and including the President of the United States — is built on trust, discipline, and accountability. You follow orders because those orders come from leaders who have earned the respect of the people they command. How does the military remain subservient to a Commander in Chief who has been found guilty of crimes based on fraud and deception?

Consider the risks:

Do world leaders trust a Convicted Falsifier of Records who was Commander in Chief? Would allies and adversaries both wonder if he could be trusted to follow through in important negotiations or in a crisis?

Military Morale: What do rank-and-file soldiers think, when their commander would be disqualified from enlisting with them?

Rule of Law: What precedent do we create for future leaders? If 34 felony convictions aren’t a disqualifier, what’s disqualifying?

The Need for Reform

The days of complacency are long gone. Such a blatant contradiction calls for action. We need to update the bars for presidential eligibility to match the dignity of the office.

There should be a constitutional amendment passed by Congress barring all who have been convicted of a felony from serving as President of the United States. The process will not be easy — it takes a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states — but it is essential to protect the integrity of our democracy.
While awaiting a constitutional amendment, states need to consider their ballot access rules. Just as states determine who can be on the ballot for lower offices, they should think about whether people with felony convictions should be eligible to run for the highest stage.
Voters themselves must also demand better. They need to ask themselves if they would trust the safety of their family and the future of their country to a person convicted of crimes of dishonesty. If a felon isn’t able to run a register at Walmart, why are they running the Department of Defense?

A Standard Worth Upholding

The United States Armed Forces demands the highest standards of integrity and discipline from its members. Why on earth should we expect anything less from the person at the helm? This isn’t about party affiliation — it’s about our nation’s safety and security.
If one felony conviction disqualifies an American from wearing a uniform, how can 34 allow him to lead those who wear it?

This is a national disgrace. It is a betrayal of the ideals we profess to cherish. It’s time to acknowledge this lackluster failure and to demand that our leaders embody the decency, honor, and accountability the office of President requires.

The presidency is no game, and commander in chief is no honorary title. This is a position of immense responsibility — one that must be filled by someone who is worthy of the trust we, the American people, and the men and women who stand ready to defend this nation, place in him.

So here’s the riddle me this: how is a man who’s unfit to flip burgers or stock shelves fit to lead the free world?

It is time we tackle this question.