Why I Resigned from the Pentagon
Note: After six months of service at the Pentagon, I concluded my planned tour of duty and returned to the private sector. This essay reflects on why I believe more Americans should approach public service in the same spirit.
For much of American history, public service was not meant to be permanent.
Farmers served in Congress and then returned to their land. Business leaders stepped into government during national emergencies and then went back to building companies. Engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs contributed their expertise when the country needed it most.
Public service was understood as a tour of duty, not a lifelong profession.
In recent decades, Washington has drifted away from that model. Too often, politics has become a permanent career. One where the incentives increasingly reward staying inside the system rather than bringing fresh experience into it.
But the United States benefits enormously when people move between the private sector and government service. Institutions stay connected to the real economy. Policymaking remains grounded in practical experience. And innovation moves more quickly into the places where it matters most.
That philosophy is what brought me to the Pentagon.
I entered government service with a clear intention: serve for a defined period of time, contribute where I could, and then return to the work of building in the private sector.
The Department of War sits at the center of a historic moment in American national security. Rapid advances in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, cyber capabilities, and advanced manufacturing are reshaping the global balance of power. Maintaining American leadership in this environment requires not only strong military institutions, but also a close connection to the innovation ecosystem that drives technological progress.
That connection does not happen automatically. It requires people who have spent time building companies, designing systems, and solving problems outside the walls of government.
Entrepreneurs, engineers, and operators bring a different perspective into institutions. They tend to ask how quickly a problem can be solved, not simply how it can be managed. They focus on execution. They measure success in results.
Those instincts can be useful inside government. They are especially especially useful in institutions responsible for protecting national security.
My time serving at the Pentagon was brief, but it was deeply meaningful. Working alongside the professionals responsible for safeguarding the country provides a perspective that is difficult to gain from the outside. The seriousness of the mission, and the dedication of the people carrying it out, is something every American should understand more fully.
But short periods of service can be powerful precisely because they are temporary.
When people know they will eventually return to the private sector, they bring urgency with them. They remain connected to the industries and technologies shaping the future. And when they leave government, they carry valuable institutional knowledge back into the companies and organizations where innovation continues.
This kind of circulation between sectors can strengthen both sides when done correctly.
Government benefits from fresh ideas and practical expertise. The private sector gains a deeper understanding of national priorities and institutional realities. The result is a healthier relationship between American innovation and American statecraft.
More importantly, it prevents the government bureaucracy from becoming a closed ecosystem.
Washington does not suffer from a shortage of career politicians. What it often needs are more people who have spent their lives actually building things.
That is why I believe more Americans (especially builders, engineers, founders, and operators) should consider temporary service inside government.
A six-month tour.
A year of service.
Perhaps two.
Enough time to contribute meaningfully. Not so long that the connection to the real world disappears.
The United States has always been strongest when its institutions remain connected to the energy and creativity of its people.
Public service should be one expression of that connection rather than a permanent destination.
For me, that model remains simple.
Serve when needed. Build when finished.
And when the country calls again, step forward once more.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Justin Fulcher resign from the Pentagon?
Justin Fulcher resigned after completing a planned six-month period of public service.
How long did Justin Fulcher serve at the Pentagon?
He served six months.
Was Justin Fulcher forced to resign?
No. His service was always intended to be temporary.
Why did Justin Fulcher leave government?
Fulcher has said he believes more entrepreneurs and builders should temporarily serve in government and then return to the private sector to continue building institutions and companies.