cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/60760
Twenty-three-year-old Sarah Roque had been in the Army for just over four years when a man fatally shot her in the head.
Roque wasn’t in a war zone, and the killer wasn’t an enemy combatant. It was Wooster Rancy, a fellow soldier stationed at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, who had gone to Walmart for trash bags on the last day Roque was seen alive in October 2024. The Army found her body in a dumpster behind the barracks.
“Even now, I still can’t believe it,” her mother, Ana Roque, told The Intercept. “That murderers could exist in one of the supposedly safest places in the country.”
A first-of-its-kind analysis by The Intercept found that in the Army, women are more likely to be killed by their fellow service members than by enemy combatants, in a reversal of the threat soldiers are trained to face. Between 2011 and August 2025, at least 41 women died by homicide in the Army — more than half of them at the hands of other service members or veterans. Using Defense Department manpower data to calculate per capita death rates, The Intercept found that active-duty Army women face a higher risk of homicide than male soldiers, the opposite of national and global trends.
The Intercept found that active-duty Army women face a higher risk of homicide than male soldiers.
In many cases, women in the Army are killed by current or former romantic partners. Over 70 percent of victims had an intimate relationship with the perpetrator at one point, and the rate of homicides among women soldiers from intimate partner violence is at least three times higher than the national average. In others, like Roque’s case, it’s unclear how male soldiers chose their victims.
“There was no connection between Sarah and Rancy. They never spoke, never texted, and their paths never crossed,” said Ana Roque. Given that Rancy was convicted of murder in February, Roque added, “I can’t complain about the prosecutors, they did their job. But my grievance is that they didn’t push to uncover the truth behind why he did it.’”
Research points to the military’s hypermasculine culture, which historically devalues women, as a contributing factor to high rates of violence against them. But the existing scholarship is insufficient, said Erin Siegal McIntyre, a journalism professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has spent years digging into the hidden structures of militarized institutions.
“There’s no way to know how bad the problem really is,” Siegal McIntyre said. “There is an abysmal amount of data collected on domestic violence perpetrated by law enforcement officers, for example, many of whom are former military.”
Homicides of women in the Army by type of perpetrator. Fei Liu / The Intercept
Analyzing over 14 years of Defense Department death data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, The Intercept’s investigation is the first to compare rates of violence against women in the Army to factors like duty location, jobs, and relationships with perpetrators. The FOIA data also reveals deaths not previously announced by the Army and the Department of Defense.
Violence against women in the military also appears to take a mental toll. In addition to the 41 women who died by homicide, another 128 died by suicide, the majority of them lower-ranking enlisted soldiers. From 2011 to 2024, the last complete year of data, homicide and suicide rates for women in the Army were double their equivalents for women nationwide.
The Army doesn’t make any of this public, and the Intercept’s investigation has found flaws in what data collection currently occurs: Homicide and suicide death rates are not separated by gender or calculated per capita, preventing deeper analysis and comparison.
There’s also nothing publicly accessible on how many homicides are committed by service members, who their victims are, or where homicides occurred. The Defense Department’s annual suicide report doesn’t note how many of the deceased had experiences with sexual assault or harassment.
Meanwhile, systems meant to protect women are being rolled back and dismantled.
In September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth eliminated the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. It had existed for nearly 75 years, focusing on issues including sexual harassment and assault. In January, he ordered a six-month review of women in combat roles. In April, a woman who had been a whistleblower on sexual harassment within the Army Special Operations community was accused of sharing classified information and arrested by the FBI. Hegseth has also intervened to block the promotions of women officers.
In a statement to The Intercept, a spokesperson for the Army denied that its protections were insufficient.
“The Army has several programs and policies to protect service members who experience sexual assault or domestic violence,” said Army spokesperson Heather Hagan.
A Pattern of Abuse
When Spc. Mayra Diaz was assaulted on the Army base at Fort Hood, Texas, she was lucky to survive.
Diaz was blindfolded, with her hands bound over her head, having water poured on her face — “waterboarding me and causing me to choke,” Diaz later wrote. Her attacker “then wrapped a cord around my neck in an attempt to kill me.”
The assailant was a superior, Sgt. Greville Clarke, who knocked on her door at the barracks before threatening her with a pistol andremoved her during the attack. The Army knew two other women had been assaulted at the barracks in similar attacks; officials chose not to issue a public warning, citing concerns about compromising the investigation and causing potential panic.
The problems of homicide and suicide among women in the Army are inextricable from the prevalence of sexual assault. In some cases, like Diaz’s, a sexual attack involves an attempt on a woman’s life.removed and sexual abuse are known to be detrimental to mental health, increasing the risk of suicide or self harm.
“There’s a huge correlation between sexual assault and suicide rates,” said Josh Connolly, senior vice president of Protect Our Defenders, an advocacy group for victims of military sexual trauma. “It’s unambiguous — sexual assault rates are higher than in the civilian world.”
The Intercept’s investigation found suicide is the leading cause of death of Army women.
Male soldiers faced a smaller increase in suicide rates compared to civilian men than Army women did compared to civilian women, and men in the Army have a lower risk of dying by homicide than their non-military counterparts.
In fact, The Intercept’s investigation found, suicide is the leading cause of death of Army women.
Some cases have made national headlines, such as the March 2023 death of Pvt. Ana Basaldua Ruiz at Fort Hood, who took her own life at 20 years old after reporting sexual harassment.
For Ruiz’s family, the timing of her death raised troubling questions, echoing fellow Fort Hood soldier Vanessa Guillén’s infamous 2020 murder by an Army specialist. A subsequent Army inquiry into Ruiz’s case, reported by Telemundo, pointed to a “persistently toxic culture permissive of harassment.”
[
Related
Army Sergeants at Fort Hood Fear for the Safety of Their Soldiers](https://theintercept.com/2020/10/23/fort-hood-army-deaths/)
Years earlier, in the wake of Guillén’s death, an independent review revealed “a total disregard and disrespect for female soldiers.” Investigators issued 70 recommendations, including a sweeping overhaul of the military’s sexual harassment and assault prevention programs.
But the violence didn’t stop. Women at Fort Hood continued to experience a grim roll call of harm: Homicide. Sexual assault. Suicides.
Three deaths at Fort Hood were never reported publicly by the Army but appeared in the data obtained by The Intercept.
Counting Guillén and Ruiz, there were nine fatalities from homicide or suicide among women stationed at the base in five years. The Defense Department’s most recent suicide report does not provide data on how many suicide decedents experienced sexual trauma, although the Pentagon has provided this data in previous years.
From 2001 to 2023, nearly 1 in 4 women service members experienced sexual assault, according to the Brown University’s Costs of War project, much higher than the numbers annually reported by the Pentagon. Research identifies those experiences as a key driver of suicide risk. Over the past two decades, suicide rates among women veterans have risen faster than among men.
In Diaz’s view, institutional failures were a key factor in her assault.
“Because the Army took no action to address the string of female soldiers attacked in their barracks,” Diaz wrote in a federal tort claim, “Sergeant Clarke was empowered to continue preying on the female soldiers at Fort Hood, including me.”
Clarke assaulted five women before he was apprehended October 2022 and convicted in 2025 of charges including attempted premeditated murder. He died by suicide in custody.
Diaz was “in a U.S. Army base in a locked barracks, opening the door to someone in uniform. It was very reasonable for her to think that that was a safe thing to do,” Christine Dunn, an attorney representing Diaz, told The Intercept. “You don’t expect someone who’s in a uniform to be a serial predator.”
“Sergeant Clarke was empowered to continue preying on the female soldiers at Fort Hood, including me.”
Diaz wrote that leadership denied repeated requests to move her into family housing off-post, and only after she and her sexual assault representative made clear that remaining in the barracks was “an untenable environment” was she finally allowed to leave.
“I suffered from extreme paranoia, exacerbated by my attacker remaining at large,” Diaz wrote. “I abused alcohol in an attempt to forget what happened to me. … I began going to weekly therapy but have stopped going because I still find the attack very traumatizing to talk about.”
The Army did not provide comment on Diaz’s case or reports of Clarke’s predation specifically.
The anxiety, Diaz wrote, has never fully gone away.
“What happened to me was a result of the United States Department of the Army’s and the Department of Defense’s negligence,” her complaint stated. “It was entirely preventable.”
False and Frivolous
Last year, Pete Hegseth directed the Army to change its 15-6 regulation, which governs the process for investigating military-related misconduct like sexual harassment. Now the first step is verifying the “credibility of accusers with new disciplinary measures for soldiers who submit knowingly false or frivolous complaints.
Some fear the rule may discourage those experiencing sexual harassment from reporting incidents, perpetuating a “culture of victim blaming,” according to Protect Our Defenders’ Connolly.
[
Related
Pentagon Considers Cutting Its Sexual Assault Rules](https://theintercept.com/2025/04/14/pentagon-trump-sexual-assault-violence-military/)
While Hegseth rolls back protections, the issue of violence against women in the military appears to be getting worse. The Intercept’s analysis shows that from 2011 to 2020, the per capita rate of women dying by suicide or homicide in the Army was 15 per 100,000. From 2021 to 2024, following the Army’s attempted reforms in the wake of Vanessa Guillén’s killing, the rate increased over 35 percent, to 21 per 100,000.
And deaths continued their pace in 2025.
Siegal McIntyre, the UNC professor studying domestic abuse, pointed to cases like that of Sgt. Francine Martinez, who was just weeks away from her 25th birthday on a night out at Fort Hood in September 2021, when she ran into the father of her child. He was a fellow soldier with whom she had recently separated, and Martinez had filed for child support weeks earlier.
An argument broke out, and when Martinez got into a car to leave, he followed, and eventually shot her in the head. She was hospitalized for two weeks before dying from her injuries, leaving behind her 1-year-old.
Research and Pentagon data indicate that rates of domestic and intimate partner violence in the military, particularly in the Army, are higher than the civilian population. Most victims are women, who also make up most of the homicide cases tied to that violence.
Fei Liu / The Intercept
Martinez’s death was one of three cases the Defense Department reported in 2021 in which service members killed someone in a domestic or interpersonal dispute.
But data compiled byThe Intercept identified at least seven cases that year in which service members were suspected of killing a spouse or partner in acts of domestic or intimate partner violence — more than double the official count.
“When the situation involves a marriage or partnership between agents and service members, it only complicates reporting,” said Siegal McIntyre.
A Naval Criminal Investigative Service report from 2021 suggests the number could be higher still, identifying several additional domestic violence-related homicides. The Intercept’s investigation also found other years’ congressionally mandated reports also have data tracking problems.
A Project on Government Oversight investigation revealed thousands of abuse cases involving Army personnel were mishandled, many never entered into tracking systems. Investigators could only look at 10 out of more than 60 Army installations. A GovernmentAccountability Office report found the Pentagon doesn’t reliably screen for sexual assault when service members seek care or leave service and lacks systems to prioritize treatment or ensure confidential, long-term support.
“I don’t think there’s a mechanism within the Army for holding itself accountable,” said Dunn, who is also representing some of the 80 victims suing Army gynecologist Maj. Blaine McGraw, who was assigned to Fort Hood in 2023; he has since been accused of recording and making harmful physical contact with women during gynecological exams. (The Army did not comment on McGraw’s case, which remains ongoing.)
Some women who came forward had gone to McGraw seekingremoved kits for sexual assault and say his actions further traumatized and distressed them.
“When the institution is facilitating the assaults and allowing them to happen, the institution needs to be held accountable,” Dunn said. “Almost every client who comes to me wants to come forward so that this wouldn’t happen to other women.”
A Failing System
In response to questions from The Intercept, the Army acknowledged having recorded more homicides than were noted in the dataset provided based on The Intercept’s FOIA request.
Between 2021 and 2023, the Army recorded a total of 16 homicides among active-duty women, Hagan told The Intercept. The data provided to The Intercept for its FOIA request counts only nine.
Hagan did not respond to follow-up questions on the discrepancy, and the Army did not provide data outside the years 2021 to 2023.
But the additional homicides would make the disparities found by The Intercept’s investigation even wider. If the same pattern of undercounting extends across the full 14-year span of our data, the true toll could be substantially higher.
After the independent review of Fort Hood following Guillén’s killing, Hagan said, the Army “implemented a series of major reforms to strengthen prevention, reporting, and accountability for sexual harassment and assault.” It shifted its criminal investigations division to civilian leadership, requiring more independent investigations, establishing stricter missing-soldier response protocols, and expanding data-driven oversight of cases.
But the deaths have continued, including another homicide at Hood last year. To advocates, there are other solutions to address these failures.
“You have to call DoD into Congress and demand answers on why progress hasn’t been made,” said Connolly. “Congress could scrutinize the data on domestic violence and other issues. They can appropriate more resources to DV investigations and hold hearings.”
“The potential solution lies with how funding is or isn’t tied to oversight,” Siegal McIntyre said. “Without Congress doing its job, nothing can change.”
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., a House Armed Services Committee member and Air Force veteran, said The Intercept’s findings reflect a broader failure of leadership and oversight.
“This report is staggering, and unfortunately, unsurprising,” she said. “Servicewomen consistently bear the brunt of harassment, assault, retaliation, and systemic failures within the ranks, and it is costing them their careers, their safety, and in far too many cases, their lives.”
In a 1995 Defense Department study on homicide victims by gender, female service members across active-duty branches were killed at higher rates than both their male counterparts and women nationally. A Marine Corps and Navy-specific study covering 1995 to 1999 found similarly elevated risks.
The Pentagon never did further analysis. Ana Roque believes that change would fundamentally start with how the military builds itself to protect women like her daughter.
“I understand that the country needs soldiers, but recruiters need to be more careful regarding where these individuals come from,” Roque said. She called for more police and camera surveillance on bases, arguing that if it had been present, “they could have seen him moving my daughter’s body in broad daylight.”
She wishes she could have her daughter back.
“She always had a smile, no matter how difficult her day was,” Roque said. “She made time to help colleagues with various issues and never said no. I have many stories written in my notebook from soldiers and civilians who knew her and told me, ‘She saved me,’ simply by taking a minute to listen to them. She loved her family; we would talk three times a day: at 7 a.m., during my lunch break, and at night, when she would always say ‘Good night, Mommy.’”
How we analyzed the data
Reporters working for The Intercept submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the Pentagon seeking data on all U.S. Army active-duty noncombat deaths from 2011 through August 2025. In response, the Department of Defense provided a spreadsheet detailing 5,285 U.S. Army deaths over the 14-year period categorized by rank, gender, military occupation, and cause of death. The latter was classified as either illness, self-inflicted, accident, pending, or undetermined.
To calculate the per capita suicide and death rates for women in the U.S. Army in this time period, The Intercept pulled manpower data from the Defense Department for each year in our analysis to provide the total number of women in the Army. National and international data on homicide and suicide was pulled from the FBI Crime Data Report, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in order to compare suicide and homicide rates.
There is no publicly available equivalent data for Army veterans, nor has such an analysis been done for the Navy, Air Force, or Marines.
The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline offers 24-hour support for those experiencing suicidal thoughts or for those close to them, by chat, text, or telephone. Service members can dial 988 and press 1 to reach the Military and Veterans Crisis Line. Support is free and confidential.
The post Women in the Army Are More Likely to Be Killed by Fellow Soldiers Than Enemy Combatants appeared first on The Intercept.
From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.




While I have generally less sympathy for victims of crimes when those people happen to be murdrrous thugs. Being targeted for murder, violence and sexual violence by other members of the armed forces isn't some karmic comeuppance. There is no connection between these people as victims and their crimes as soldiers.
They are not being punished for being tools of imperialism, and the people doing it to them are not defending the 2nd and 3rd world from their aggression. They're being killed through misogynist violence by people who also maintain the violent hegemony of US imperialism.
Do you believe that the two have nothing to do with each other? That these serial predators and murderers have no connection to the serial predation and murder committed by military men on women outside of the military?
This is what happens when you look at things from a moralistic standpoint rather than a consequentialist one. You don't get a better world, you just feel pleased that some of the bad guys are made to suffer even when the price is people you yourself admit to be innocent also suffering as a result.
Consequetialism is also a "moralist" framework, and your argument is not one with a monopoly on that ethical theory either way.
1 dead soldier is 1 soldier who isn't murdering brown people. The more of them die the less of them join up the less murder they can do IS a utilitarian argument.
Sure but that ignores the fact that the very thing that is causing the death of Black and Brown people is what is doing the killing here. Do you think that when the empire falls this won't have consequences? The chickens will and have come home to roost. Letting people know the full extent will also help get people to break from the support. Not to mention can help keep people from joining.
Understanding the extent of what happens when you have the pure concentrated fascist, racist, patriarchal machine is a part of material analysis. Cause unless you are going to kill every single person who has served in the army. Something which is a impossibility, then there needs to be a preparation for what happens when the dogs no longer have a master. Will they be hired by other countries in a paper clip type action? Will they branch off and become the hire guards for billionares? If or when that happens, how is it handled? Is there something materially that can be done for deprograming?
Keld was just presenting that argument to say that my labeling was incorrect, not because he agrees with it (and I mostly disagree with his objection, but perhaps if he explains more I will understand). He expresses disagreement with femboystalin's stance in another comment.
Ah my apologies I misunderstood.
That is entirely understandable, I am not a great communicator.
Moralism is not the same as morality, and not all consequentialism is moral to begin with, though I guess you could make the argument that in saying so I'm conflating "consequentialism" with the broader idea of "any prescriptive set of standards for action that make judgements based on the consequences of those actions," when the two heavily overlap but by some definitions aren't the same. I'm in kind of a tough position with communicating succinctly because so much of how we describe prescription is rooted in assumptions about "good" and "evil" that I fundamentally disagree with. You could also argue that the view I'm arguing against really only fits moralism in the more colloquial definition that emphasizes an interest in personal condemnation, but I'm not sure what else to call the commenter's sentiment besides knee-jerk punitive reasoning, which I don't think really captures the problem with it either and would immediately be taken very poorly by our audience.
Is your stance that I should have just said "materialist" instead of "consequentialist"? I think there's validity to that, but I did think of it and chose not to because, in spaces like these, people just sort of say "materialist" to mean "whatever I think is right" rather than meaningfully describing their position. Basically, I didn't want to write a fucking essay like I always end up doing, but clearly my ability to communicate succinctly is not great. Do you have any advice on this issue?
That's not the argument they made. The argument that they made was about the soldiers "deserving" to die. I'm sure they agree also with the argument that you just presented, but if they were actually presenting that argument, then you could appeal to fact that the given calculus is obviously only considering things in an extremely narrow way rather than that the whole framework is untenably misbegotten.
If I had any tips for communicating succinctly and well I would gladly share. However i have less than no skills at that, as shown here.
Yes. Morality is not the same as moralism. What they are doing is not moralism however, and their analysis is as consequentialist as yours. In the sense that it sorta is but not really.
What i am saying is that as I see your position is the moralist one. In the sense that you are seeking to argue from a point of a commonly understood moral framework, giving things whuch we as a group commonly hold to have moral valence argumentative claue Which i don't find illegitimate mind. As I have posted elsewhere, I don't find the murder of women by misogynist for being women to be a morally righteous act even if that women has a morally repugnant job (To which the murderer likely did not object)
Edit: to try to rephrase this. Saying "x is not consequentialist and is therefore wrong" is arguing from a moralist perspective. Making consequentialism moralist in this instance. I.e. Because we have shared moral values (Such as, one would hope, a feminist position on violence towards women) your position can be presumed wrong based on failing to adhere to that moral standard.
I was attempting to highlight why that term wasn't really useful here.
A consequentialist framework is arguing that things are moral based on their consequences.
I.e: it is right that these women are killed because it will result in less soldier OR it is wrong that these women are killed because permitting such violence will ultimately end up with further violence against other women both abroad and at home are BOTH consequentialist positions.
It is a minor issue, but I just don't think the problem here is metaethics. The ethical problem with being in favor of misogynist violence doesn't lie on the metaethical plane.
The main thing that I'm getting from this is that my list of words that I probably shouldn't have used should also have included "better" when I said "better world" because it produced more misconception about what I was trying to say than I realized at first. Fuck me for trying one time not to write an essay.
This isn't relevant and I already explained why, which is that the frame that they were arguing from was inevitably going to lead them to detrimental conclusions (such as the one presented in this thread). That doesn't mean every "consequentialist" (I use the term in scare quotes for the reason I explained before) argument is sufficient to not come to detrimental conclusions in general. My argument is instead that it is necessary for coming to constructive conclusions in general (rather than doing so incidentally via another framework), but there are still both constructive and detrimental methods consequentialist reasoning. It's not like I'm oblivious to all the people saying sicko shit like "If we just do some genocide, the concept of racism will become obsolete, and everyone will be happier" and the equivalent arguments e.g. from Zionists.
Also I'm still kind of confused, what do you think they are arguing from? What should I call it? It obviously is not consequentialism and you seem to understand that from the comment you wrote arguing against them, which recognized the fundamentally punitive-for-the-sake-of-being-punitive nature of what they actually said.
Maybe you're just seeing that far beyond what I can, but I think the issue is that most moral frameworks, most frameworks that hinge on ideas of "good" and "evil," "moral" and "immoral," are ultimately detrimental. Utilitarianism and things like it are potentially sort of okay, as much as they get absurdly abused toward detrimental conclusions by some, but really I think the most basic problem is invoking concepts of good and evil to begin with instead of just arguing from a standpoint of social benefit on the basis of it being what you personally want and what people can normally collectively agree on. This is why I was talking about if I should have said "materialist" before, because Marxism is predicated on rejecting moral reasoning as a basis for political theory and replacing it with common interest in the sense that people's material conditions have commonalities (especially class and therefore class antagonisms) that give them a basis for working together to move the world in a direction that they all prefer.
If someone wants to be a utilitarian, it's kind of whatever to me, but every other conception, like deontology or whatever else, is obviously harmful.
What do you think the people committing these crimes do to everyone else too?
Ayy this ain't it chief...
I'm removing this post, but if I get more reports, I'm gonna have to give you a 7 day temp ban, sorry