Charges involving disrespect or contempt toward officials raise a recurring question: does the government have to prove that the accused meant to embarrass or undermine the official, or is it enough that the words themselves were contemptuous? The answer turns on which offense is charged and on how military courts define the mental state, the mens rea, that the prosecution must establish. Under Article 88 of the UCMJ, contempt toward officials, the short answer is that a specific intent to embarrass or to undermine authority is generally not an element the government must prove.
What Article 88 actually prohibits
Article 88 applies to a commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against certain named officials and bodies: the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which the officer is on duty or present. The statute is limited to commissioned officers and to that specific list of officials.
To obtain a conviction, the government must prove that the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces, that the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article, that by an act of the accused those words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused, and that the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. The focus is on the contemptuous character of the words and the fact that they were communicated beyond the speaker.
The intent that does matter
The mental state required is real but narrow. The accused must have intentionally used the words in question, meaning the communication was deliberate rather than accidental, inadvertent, or the product of a slip. The words must in fact be contemptuous. What the government does not have to prove is a particular further purpose. There is no requirement to show that the officer intended to embarrass the official, to hold the official up to public ridicule, or to undermine the official’s authority. A motive to show contempt is not an element. The offense is complete when an officer deliberately uses words that are contemptuous in character against a covered official and causes those words to reach another person.
This is why intent to cause public embarrassment, while it might be present in many real cases, is not the dividing line for guilt. An officer who deliberately uses contemptuous words about the President can violate Article 88 regardless of whether the underlying goal was to embarrass the President, to vent frustration, or to entertain an audience. The deliberate use of contemptuous words is what the statute reaches.
How embarrassment can still be relevant
Even though it is not an element, the surrounding purpose and circumstances are not irrelevant. The standard recognizes that words can be contemptuous in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Context that shows the officer was trying to demean or hold an official up to scorn can help establish that the words were in fact contemptuous rather than benign. In that sense, evidence pointing toward an intent to embarrass can support the contemptuous-character element, even though the government is not required to prove that intent as a separate matter.
The circumstances also help separate punishable contempt from protected criticism. The article is understood not to reach adverse criticism of a covered official expressed in the course of a political discussion, even when emphatically stated, provided it is not personally contemptuous. The line is between robust disagreement on policy or politics, which is not the target of the article, and personally contemptuous statements that attribute meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness to the official. Whether words cross that line is judged in context, and an apparent purpose to ridicule rather than to debate can inform that judgment.
Private versus public statements
On its face, Article 88 does not distinguish between statements made in an official capacity and those made in a private one. As a practical matter, however, opinions expressed in genuinely private conversation are rarely charged, both because the requirement that the words come to the knowledge of another shapes what is provable and because prosecutorial discretion tends to focus on statements with broader reach. Public dissemination is therefore frequently a feature of charged cases, but the legal element is communication to a person other than the accused, not public embarrassment as such.
Distinguishing Article 89
A related offense, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer under Article 89, covers disrespectful words or conduct directed at one’s own superior. It addresses a different relationship and a different set of officials than Article 88. Counsel evaluating a case must identify which provision the charge rests on, because the elements and the protected persons differ, even though both turn on disrespect rather than on proof of an intent to embarrass.
Bottom line
For an Article 88 prosecution, the government must prove that a commissioned officer deliberately used contemptuous words against a covered official and that the words reached another person. It need not prove that the officer intended to embarrass the official or to undermine authority. An intent to embarrass may help show that the words were contemptuous, and the absence of any contemptuous character, as in pure political criticism, is a defense. But the intent to embarrass is evidence bearing on the real element, not an element the prosecution is obligated to establish.
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.