By Mike Nelson
Tuesday, August 25, 2026
Jason Watson, an active-duty major in the U.S. Air Force,
was detained and ordered into “pretrial custody” (the military
equivalent of being held without bail) last Tuesday. While he hadn’t been
formally charged at that time, it seems fairly clear that Watson will face
charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) stemming from his
repeated public criticism of President Donald Trump and demands for the president’s
impeachment. The day before his detention, Watson criticized Trump in a
primetime interview on CNN while clearly identifying himself as a member of the
U.S. military. (His lawyer has suggested the arrest might be related to Watson’s refusal
to wear his uniform at work.)
This is actually Watson’s second legal entanglement due
to his dramatic displays and big mouth: On July 1 the Capitol Police detained
Watson when he staged a one-man protest while in uniform (although the specific
reason for this detention was his presence on a restricted part of the Capitol
grounds without a congressional escort). His chain of command was no doubt
preparing charges based on those antics, but it seems the CNN appearance
prompted the latest detention.
Many prominent Democrats, who may agree with the specific
claims Watson made about the president’s failure to seek congressional approval
for the war in Iran or broader issues of public corruption, have spoken out
vociferously against Watson’s detention and the punishment he will no doubt
receive at the end of military legal proceedings. Pennsylvania Democrat Rep.
Chrissy Houlahan, herself an Air Force veteran who should, therefore, know
better, not only applauded Watson but specifically praised him for having worn his uniform while he made
explicitly political statements. Rep. Al Green, a huge fan of impeachment
resolutions—and the sponsor of the Watson event at the Capitol—said Watson’s
example provided “the kind of courage necessary to inspire others.”
In fact, Watson represents a dangerous, unprofessional,
and self-important impulse that should be confronted at every turn. Nobody,
regardless of the virtue of their arguments or the degree to which one agrees
with them, should politicize the military, attempt to speak on behalf of the
military, or imply a uniform opinion among service members or, in fact, suggest
the military, as an institution, has an opinion on matters of politics.
Many observers, potentially unfamiliar with military order and
discipline, suggest that punishing Watson infringes upon his First Amendment
rights. But service members are governed by the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, which has more restrictive prohibitions on speech and conduct than the
freedoms enjoyed by civilians. Among other prohibitions, Article 88 clearly states, “Any commissioned officer who
uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress,
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State,
Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished
as a court-martial may direct.” This would apply to Watson under any
circumstances, but it’s even more egregious that he chose to criticize the
president publicly while also wearing his uniform, a fact that Houlahan thought
was praiseworthy.
Many of those rightfully condemning Watson’s behavior
seem to have been less critical of the same offenses when they agreed with the
criticism being leveled. In 2021, then-Marine Lt. Col. Stu Scheller produced
and distributed a video in which he criticized senior military commanders and
civilian leaders for their handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Scheller was tried via court-martial, as Watson is likely to be, and pleaded
guilty to six UCMJ offenses, including the previously mentioned Article 88, as
well as Article 89 (disrespect toward superior commissioned officers).
Both Watson and Scheller used their positions in the
military to criticize their political leadership, failing in their duty as
military officers to refrain from either endorsement or criticism of the
decisions made by the civilians who lead the country. But Scheller has found
status as a bit of a cause célèbre among the MAGA right. At the time, his
lawyer, Tim Parlatore, appeared on Fox and Friends Weekend to make his
case for Scheller to receive an honorable discharge rather than more severe
punishment, with the Fox host on the other side being one Pete Hegseth
(Scheller received a general discharge—the level beneath an honorable discharge
but not as damning as a dishonorable discharge). Hegseth invoked Scheller
during his 2025 confirmation hearing, praising Scheller’s criticism of the
Biden administration rather than criticizing his unprofessional behavior.
Scheller has since been appointed as a senior adviser within the Pentagon.
Parlatore, who was also Hegseth’s personal lawyer as he faced allegations of
sexual misconduct, has been brought into the Pentagon himself as a Navy
reservist and adviser to Hegseth at the same time that he represents, in a personal capacity,
military officers whose career advancement Hegseth decides—a profound conflict
of interest.
Watson and Scheller using their uniforms to lend
credibility to their causes is not only unprofessional and illegal but is
intended to create the perception of larger institutional support for their
statements or to boost attention. Nobody would pay attention to a random
citizen holding a sign on Capitol Hill calling for Trump’s impeachment or a
video calling Biden’s shameful handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal exactly
that. It was precisely because Watson and Scheller chose to violate their
responsibilities that they received the attention they sought. It’s also why
some of those no longer bound by the constraints of the UCMJ try to use their
uniforms to influence public opinion, just as John Kerry did when he protested
the Vietnam War or as serial fabricator Anthony Aguilar and perennial protester
Josephine Guilbeau did when they disrupted
a congressional hearing to protest U.S. support for Israel. Even if these
former military members are no longer governed by the strict prohibitions of
good order and discipline, they shamefully use their status as veterans to
undercut the belief in a rigidly apolitical military.
The purpose of keeping the military apolitical is not
just to prevent critical statements against one side or the other, but also to
prevent the inverse—the military or members of the military should not give
endorsements to specific policies or to any political party. Neutrality
requires neither condemnation nor commendation. But the current administration,
whether through explicit endorsement or tacit permission, is allowing the kinds
of obsequious and laudatory statements that have become the first item of
business in Trump administration Cabinet meetings to start to become, to a
degree, part of military culture.
Chris LaNeve, then a lieutenant general and commander of
the 8th Army based in Korea, zoomed into President Trump’s inaugural
ball to heap fawning praise on the president. “Congratulations on your victory
as the 47th president of the United States … Welcome back, Mr. President.” It was odd
that LaNeve, despite several layers of command between him and the commander in
chief, would dial in, the only commander to do so, to make sure the president
was aware of his support—it would have been odd for any commander to do so. But
it seems to have gotten the president’s attention, and that of those looking to
stay in the president’s good graces. “(I)s this man central casting or what? If
I’m doing a movie, I’d pick him to play my lead,” Trump said after LaNeve’s
comments that night, and in a way, he has picked him to play his lead.
In February 2025, Hegseth fired Air Force Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short as his senior
military adviser and named LaNeve as her replacement. Eight months later, Hegseth fired Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James
Mingus and named LaNeve to replace him. Six months after that, Hegseth fired
the occupant of the Army’s top job, Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, and—to
quote Gomer
Pyle—surprise, surprise, surprise, LaNeve has been serving as the acting
chief of staff since and is Hegseth’s pick to permanently fill the job,
although he seems to face some pushback from GOP senators.
The message is implicit but clear: A way to get ahead in
Trump’s military is to show slavish devotion to Trump and Hegseth above and
beyond dutiful execution of their directives as legitimate members of the chain
of command. It’s why active-duty Army officers feel confident enough to criticize members of Congress knowing that, instead of a
reprimand for their lack of professionalism, they will receive the pat on the
head and the attaboy they desperately desire. Instead of reinforcing a
commitment to an apolitical military, this kind of reward system, and lack of
enforcement, encourages partisanship—as long as the unprofessional political
grandstanding goes the “right” way.
Of course, the perception of military support for
Republicans and contempt for Democrats is what the administration wants, norms
and guardrails be damned. It’s why the vice president resorted to cheap punch lines about former President
Biden’s infirmities in front of a crowd of sailors and Marines at NAS Oceana
(ironically on the same day that Watson staged his demonstration at the
Capitol). It’s why Trump has done campaign-style rallies to troops, whom he
commands, at Fort
Bragg and at America 250 events. It’s why Hegseth demanded an audience
of his top generals and sergeants major to rail against the previous
administration.
The military represents the legitimate use of the
government’s force against foreign enemies and adversaries and, in extreme
circumstances under specific conditions, against domestic ones as well. It does
not, and cannot, come to represent an armed force with a desired outcome in
political disputes between Americans and the politicians who represent them.
Maintaining the legitimacy of the military requires rigid commitment, to both
the letter and spirit of the law, by the service members who comprise it and
the politicians who command it. Sadly, too many people prefer partisanship when
it favors their side over a principled commitment to an apolitical military—yet
another erosion of longstanding norms during the current era of American
politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment