When the Military Breaks Trust: Systemic Betrayal and Service Member Recovery

In my individual and group work, systemic betrayal consistently emerges as a

central barrier to healing. It often prevents veterans and service members from softening rigid beliefs about themselves, others, and the world. Especially when they represent marginalized identity groups that experienced exclusion or invisibility within the military system. For many service members and veterans, the deepest wounds are not inflicted by combat or external enemies. They emerge quietly, often over time, when the institution they trusted fails to protect, support, or tell the truth.

When the Institution Becomes the Injury

Systemic betrayal occurs when an institution of power violates trust, minimizes harm, or prioritizes self-preservation over the well-being of its constituents. It is not about a single bad leader or an isolated incident. It is about the patterns of policies, culture, and responses that communicate to service members that:

Your suffering is inconvenient

Your voice is expendable

Your loyalty will not be reciprocated

Trust Is Not Optional in Hierarchical Systems

Therefore, in a system like the military, where the concept is sold as a "brotherhood," trust becomes foundational rather than elective. Service members relinquish their independence & livelihoods, relying on leadership to protect them. But when leadership drops the ball and trust is broken, the truth becomes painfully clear: the institution will protect itself first.

Systemic Betrayal Across the Military Lifecycle

Systemic betrayal can occur across the entire military lifecycle from enlistment to active service, to discharge, and reintegration. In my work, it often emerges in cases of military racial trauma or military sexual trauma, when a service member reports sexual assault or harassment, racism or discrimination and is met with disbelief, minimization, career retaliation, or pressure to remain silent.

Betrayal can also begin at the very point of entry. Some veterans describe joining the military after being promised access to education benefits, job placement, housing, or streamlined pathways into desired careers, only to later be told that these assurances were misunderstood, exaggerated, or contingent on conditions never clearly explained. When concerns are raised, they are often met with "you should have read the fine print," "you had the wrong recruiter," or "that was never guaranteed." In these moments, the harm is not only the broken promise, but the systematic denial of reality, reinforcing the message that the individual is responsible for the institution’s failure.

After you complete your military service and are in a vulnerable position, you are met with inadequate transition support, delayed or inaccessible benefits, and the sudden loss of identity, structure, and community. You re-engage in the structure and culture of the VA system as you are reduced to a diagnosis, rating, or claim number. The feelings of powerlessness, invisibility, and invalidation are reinforced, sending an implicit message that

If the harm was real, it would be easier to prove.

Combat Trauma and Systemic Betrayal as a Compounding Injury

Now, when combat trauma intersects with systemic betrayal, it can become a compounding injury. Service members are trained to operate in life-threatening environments where hypervigilance, emotional suppression, and rapid decision-making are necessary for survival. Some have said to me that maybe they could have tolerated the realities of combat if leadership was honest or their sacrifices were acknowledged, or they had a purpose after completing the mission. However, it was just wishful thinking, and combat trauma could no longer be contextualized as part of service. For the threat was no longer external, but became embedded within the institution itself. As a result, service members develop a profound distrust of authority and systems (legal, medical, & VA) alongside shame, self-blame, social isolation, and heavy self-reliance.

What Institutional Repair Actually Looks Like

The first and most typical thing I do is name and clarify the betrayal. I acknowledge the lived experience and make space for anger and grief without pathologizing. I ask clarifying questions of how the betrayal happened and why they felt betrayed based on their personal definition. Likewise, I also help identify the character strengths that emerged from these experiences (self-advocacy, self-reliance, tenacity, endurance) while simultaneously recognizing the exhaustion that comes with carrying those strengths for too long.

At the same time, I recognize that my position as a representative of the VA places me in a role of institutional authority, and with that comes responsibility. True institutional repair requires more than policy updates or awareness campaigns. It requires transparent accountability when harm occurs and active support in navigating systems that are often opaque and overwhelming.

Sometimes repair looks like advocating directly by sending a Teams message or email on a veteran’s behalf or leaving the office to attend outreach events coordinated by VA veteran outreach specialists. Ensuring that veterans are informed about their options, benefits, and opportunities, and following up when additional connection or clarification is needed. Institutional repair is not about erasing the past. It is about refusing to repeat it. Through consistent acknowledgment, advocacy, and presence, I work to slowly rebuild trust in a system that once broke it.

What Clinicians Often Miss

Even well-trained clinicians can unintentionally replicate systemic betrayal when working with service members and veterans.

Where we can:

• Over-pathologize adaptive responses: Treating hypervigilance, emotional numbing, or distrust as purely symptomatic rather than contextually learned.

• Ignoring institutional context: Focusing only on individual coping without addressing military culture, power dynamics, or betrayal.

• Rushing forgiveness or acceptance: Pressuring clients to "let go" before accountability or meaning-making has occurred.

• Mislabeling moral injury as resistance: Interpreting anger, grief, or withdrawal as avoidance rather than ethical pain.

  
  

Many service members gave their trust fully and without hesitation. When that trust was broken, the injury was not just personal; it is systemic. Acknowledging systemic betrayal in the military is not anti-service, but pro-human because no one should have to heal from the institution they served.