Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s campaign to oust service members celebrating or mocking the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk online has already seen at least eight people suspended or placed under investigation, with legal experts warning of a chilling effect on free speech.
The disciplinary actions — including suspensions of at least five Army officers and an Air Force senior master sergeant, a Marine officer relieved of his recruiting duties and placed under investigation, and an Army Reserve major also being looked at, according to Task & Purpose — comes after Hegseth last week ordered staff to actively search for anyone working for the Defense Department who condoned or made fun of Kirk’s Sept. 10 death.
But a “witch hunt” for people who criticize someone that the Trump administration is lionizing is “extremely dangerous” as it threatens to remove the long-held apolitical nature of the military, according to Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force judge advocate and now a law professor at Southwestern Law School.
“Going beyond things that directly impact good order and discipline, directly impact the military mission, just to retribute and punish and therefore suppress and chill any personal expression based on ideological grounds is beyond the pale,” VanLandingham told The Hill.
She added, “We’ve never seen institutionally … the ability of the Pentagon to limit speech utilized to such an extent purely on ideological grounds.”
Kirk, the co-founder of the conservative activist group Turning Point USA, was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.
A day after his death, Hegseth indicated Pentagon officials would be monitoring social media posts made by any military members commenting negatively about the late activist.
“We are tracking all these very closely — and will address, immediately. Completely unacceptable,” Hegseth posted last Thursday on the social platform X, responding to Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, who wrote, “It is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American.”
The secretaries of the Army, Air Force and Navy released similar statements promising action against any inappropriate posts.
And Sept. 14, Parnell claimed that those who publicly celebrate or mock Kirk’s assassination were in violation of their oath of office, had acted in conduct unbecoming to a service member and had betrayed “the Americans they’ve sworn to protect,” making them “dangerously incompatible with military service.”
A handful of major conservative social media accounts and several smaller military-focused ones have identified posts of some people commenting on Kirk’s killing, tagging Hegseth and other senior Pentagon officials to get their attention, leading to several suspensions.
Hegseth’s efforts have been heavily criticized by those on the left, including Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger, who said hunting down, removing and prosecuting service members for their individual political beliefs is “dangerous and un-American.”
“We must condemn political violence AND allow peaceful speech that doesn’t impact the chain of command,” Crow posted Sunday to X.
His colleague and fellow veteran across the aisle, retired Navy SEAL Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), said Wednesday he was fine with such removals.
“Look, if you’re celebrating the loss of life, a political assassination of a father, a husband — if you’re celebrating a political assassination, I can tell you, I don’t want you on my SEAL team,” Zinke said during an appearance on “CNN This Morning.”
“I don’t want you in my Department of Defense or Department of War,” he continued. “I don’t want you [to be] a sailor, a soldier, a Marine, if you’re celebrating that.”
However, legal experts worry that any campaign targeting service members for espousing their views online ultimately will be a detriment to the military, driving talented people out of the armed services without recourse and instilling a fear of speaking out in others.
Some Pentagon officials have gone a step further, raising the possibility of criminal prosecution of members who applaud or make light of Kirk’s assassination.
Stephen Simmons, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for military community and family policy, has claimed that service members posting negatively about Kirk were in violation of their oath of office, and that Hegseth “knows (as do we all) that this cancer that desecrates the constitution – and the people for whom it was written – must be neutralized.”
Additionally, Under Secretary of the Air Force Matthew Lohmeier said Saturday that in the case of one Air Force member removed from his role, he had requested that senior military leaders “read the member his rights, and place him and his entire chain of command under investigation.”
“What I have seen is, at a minimum, a violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ. … Men and women who are guilty of this kind of behavior will not serve in uniform,” Lohmeier posted, according to CNN.
But while the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) limits what troops can say publicly — to include using contemptuous words against the commander in chief and other U.S. government officials — service members still have First Amendment rights under the Constitution. This means there are legal roadblocks to the Pentagon’s authority to punish troops for any alleged comments about Kirk, according to Don Christensen, a retired Air Force colonel who previously served as a military judge and the Air Force’s chief prosecutor.
While he said service members could potentially be removed from their jobs, there is no legal standing for pressing charges against them under the oft-cited Article 133 of the UCMJ, the rule that prohibits conduct unbecoming of an officer.
Christensen said for that to be applied, there has to be some sort of prior notice that the conduct would be a violation.
“You can’t just prosecute people on a whim without some sort of notice that what they would be doing would be considered criminal,” he said.
Also cited as a means for discipline is Article 134 of the UCMJ, known as a catch-all, which addresses conduct not covered elsewhere to punish troops for behavior that harms good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the military.
But Christensen said that to prosecute troops using that rule, “you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that conduct is service discrediting or prejudicial to good order and discipline,” a steep hill to climb.
“What I think is the most absurd thing I’ve heard is that this is a violation of our oath,” he said. “There is nothing in the oath we take when we become service members that would in any way would ever say you’re violating your oath because you don’t like Charlie Kirk and think he should have died. That’s an absurdity.”
Even with a murky legal path forward on legally punishing members of the military, “the reality is, they can ruin a lot of people’s lives by doing what they’re doing,” he added of Pentagon leaders.
VanLandingham also noted that she knows several service members who have reached out to her personally and relayed that they were scrubbing everything on their social media accounts, as they’re “terrified.”
“The damage is already being done,” she said. “There’s an incredible chill effect. And what we have, actually, is a witch hunt against individuals who have utilized their First Amendment right to express ideological views in their personal capacity.”