Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. 888, makes it a punitive offense for a commissioned officer to use contemptuous words against certain named officials and bodies. The short answer to the question is yes: the official or legislative body that is the subject of the contemptuous words must hold the protected office or status at the time the words are used. Whether a person once held a protected position, or might hold it in the future, does not satisfy the elements of the offense.
The text and reach of Article 88
Article 88 reaches only a defined list of targets. The statute protects 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. Because the list is closed, contemptuous words directed at someone outside it are not punishable under this article, although they may sometimes be addressed under other provisions such as Article 133 or Article 134.
Two features of the article shape how the “in office” question plays out. First, Article 88 applies only to commissioned officers. Enlisted members and warrant officers who hold no commission cannot commit this specific offense, though their disrespectful or disloyal speech may be charged elsewhere. Second, the offense punishes contemptuous words, meaning language that expresses scorn or disdain. Criticism, even sharp criticism, is not automatically contemptuous, and context matters.
Why the timing of office-holding controls
The explanatory material accompanying Article 88 in the Manual for Courts-Martial states that the official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in the article at the time of the offense. This requirement flows directly from the purpose of the article. The offense exists to protect the integrity of specific civilian and departmental offices and the principle of civilian control of the military, not to shield particular individuals from criticism for the rest of their lives.
Applied to a concrete situation, this means the status of the target is measured at the moment the words are spoken or written. If an officer makes a contemptuous remark about a person who has already left the office of Secretary of Defense, the remark does not satisfy the Article 88 element that the target occupy a protected office, because at the time of the statement that person no longer held the post. The same logic applies to a person who has been nominated or elected but not yet sworn in. Until the individual actually holds the office, the protective status has not attached.
Distinguishing the office from the individual
A related limitation reinforces the timing rule. The Manual explains that “Congress” or “legislature” does not include the members individually, and that “Governor” does not include a lieutenant governor. The article protects the office and the institution, not every person connected to it. This narrows the offense considerably. A contemptuous statement aimed at an individual member of Congress, rather than at Congress as a body, falls outside the article even if the member is currently serving.
This office-focused reading matters for the timing analysis. Because the harm Article 88 targets is contempt directed at the office itself, the relevant question is always whether the office was occupied by the named class of official when the contemptuous words were used. A statement about a former occupant speaks to a private citizen, not to the protected office.
What the government must prove
To obtain a conviction, trial counsel must establish that the accused was a commissioned officer, that the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article, that the words were contemptuous, and that the named official or legislature actually held the protected status at the time. The timing element is therefore not a technicality but a substantive part of the offense. If the evidence shows the target had left office or had not yet taken office when the words were used, an essential element is missing.
Practical implications for service members
For an officer facing scrutiny over public or private remarks, the office-holding timeline can be decisive. Documentation of when a statement was made, and independent confirmation of when the target entered or left the protected office, can determine whether the conduct fits Article 88 at all. Because the article also raises significant First Amendment questions and has been the subject of ongoing debate about its scope, allegations under it are fact intensive and often turn on precisely when words were uttered and who held what office at that moment.
Service members who believe their speech is being examined under Article 88 should preserve the timeline of events and seek qualified military defense counsel. The interaction between the statute, the Manual’s explanation, and the specific facts of office-holding is where these cases are won or lost, and the requirement that the target be in office at the time of the statement is one of the clearest lines the article draws.
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.