Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. section 888, makes it an offense for a commissioned officer to use 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 the officer is on duty or present. Officers who want to engage in protest or activism understandably ask where the line falls. The short answer is that Article 88 reaches only a narrow band of conduct, but it is not the only rule that governs an officer’s political and public activity. Understanding both the narrowness of Article 88 and the breadth of the other rules is the key to staying on the right side of the line.
What Article 88 actually prohibits
Article 88 is limited in three important ways. First, it applies only to commissioned officers. Enlisted members and warrant officers are not subject to it, though other provisions may reach their conduct. Second, it punishes only contemptuous words directed at a specific, closed list of officials and bodies: the President, Vice President, Congress, named Secretaries, and a Governor or legislature of the jurisdiction where the officer is on duty or present. Words about other public figures, agencies, or policies are outside the article’s text. Third, the words must be contemptuous, meaning insulting, scornful, or disdainful, either in themselves or by the circumstances in which they are used.
The article also requires that the words come to the knowledge of someone other than the officer through an act of the officer. Private thoughts and genuinely private remarks are not the target; the offense contemplates communication.
The space the article leaves open
Because Article 88 targets only contemptuous words against enumerated officials, it leaves real room for expression. Criticism of policy, expressed in measured terms, is generally not contemptuous. An officer can disagree with a law, a budget decision, or a strategic choice and explain why, so long as the expression does not cross into scorn or insult directed at a covered official. Discussing issues, advocating on matters of public concern that are not partisan attacks on enumerated officials, and engaging in civic life are not, by themselves, Article 88 violations. The article polices the manner and target of speech, not the act of holding or sharing a viewpoint.
Why Article 88 is not the whole picture
Officers should not treat compliance with Article 88 as a green light for protest and activism. Several other authorities operate alongside it, and they are often the real constraint.
Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 governs the political activities of members of the armed forces. It draws a sharp distinction between expressing personal views and engaging in partisan political activity. Active duty members are directed not to engage in partisan political activity, which includes activities such as participating in partisan political campaigns, soliciting or engaging in partisan fundraising, marching in a partisan parade, or using official authority or influence to interfere with an election. The directive also warns against any activity that may reasonably be viewed as associating the Department with a partisan cause. An officer who attends a protest in uniform, or who frames activism in a way that appears to put the military’s institutional weight behind a candidate or party, can run afoul of this directive even where no contemptuous words are spoken.
Other UCMJ provisions can also apply. Conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133 reaches behavior that dishonors or disgraces the officer or compromises the officer’s standing, which can include the manner of public activism. The FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act struck the former words “and a gentleman” from this offense. The general article, Article 134, can reach conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting conduct. Orders and regulations restricting demonstrations on installations, wearing the uniform at political events, and similar matters may be enforceable under Article 92.
Practical guidance for staying within bounds
An officer who wants to participate in protest or activism can reduce risk by separating the personal from the official and the issue from the insult. Keeping activity out of uniform, off duty, and clearly in a personal capacity avoids the appearance that the institution endorses a position. Avoiding the use of rank, position, or official channels to amplify a message keeps the conduct from looking like an exercise of military authority. Focusing on issues and policy rather than scornful attacks on the enumerated officials keeps the speech outside the contempt that Article 88 forbids. Steering clear of partisan campaign activity respects Directive 1344.10. And remembering that the manner of expression matters, not just the content, helps avoid Articles 133 and 134.
Bottom line
A commissioned officer can engage in protest and activism without triggering Article 88, because that article reaches only contemptuous words against a short, specific list of officials and bodies. Reasoned criticism and issue advocacy generally fall outside it. But Article 88 is the floor, not the ceiling. Directive 1344.10’s limits on partisan political activity, along with Articles 92, 133, and 134, frequently impose tighter constraints. An officer who keeps activism personal, out of uniform, nonpartisan, and free of scornful attacks on covered officials has the best chance of expressing views lawfully. Because consequences can be severe and fact specific, an officer contemplating public activism should seek advice tailored to the particular plan.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.