The Uniform Code of Military Justice is not an antiquated relic; it is the bedrock of military discipline and the safeguard of democratic governance. It now stands as the last barrier between order and chaos as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth faces a defining test. The issue at hand is not a minor breach of protocol—it is a blatant insubordination that strikes at the heart of civilian control over the military. Certain retired flag officers have violated Articles 88 and 133 with reckless impunity, and the only question that remains is whether this administration will have the resolve to restore discipline. If these officers are not held accountable, the implications are dire: the erosion of civilian authority, the unchecked defiance of military elites and a crisis of governance that imperils the Republic itself. The UCMJ is unambiguous: retirees remain subject to its jurisdiction, and their calculated insubordination is a threat that must be met with decisive action.
To understand the necessity of these court-martials, one must first examine the governing statutes. Article 88 explicitly prohibits commissioned officers from using “contemptuous words” against the president. The intent of this article is clear: military officers, entrusted with the nation’s defense, must remain apolitical in their conduct, their fealty bound to the Constitution and the chain of command rather than personal grievances. Article 133, which addresses conduct unbecoming an officer, extends beyond overt insubordination, encompassing actions and statements that erode the dignity and discipline expected of senior military leaders. The retired officers who have engaged in public, venomous attacks against President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have violated both.
These officers are not mere commentators or private citizens exercising their First Amendment rights unencumbered. They are retired generals and admirals who continue to receive government pensions, a reminder that they remain, in legal terms, part of the armed forces. They enjoy privileges from their service, from security clearances to advisory roles, yet they have weaponized their prominence to undermine the legitimacy of a duly elected president. This is not about policy disagreements; this is about a cadre of military elites who believe they are above the democratic system they swore to defend. Their public statements, laden with disdain and outright contempt, have emboldened insubordination among the ranks, threatening good order and discipline.
One of the most egregious examples is that of retired General James Mattis. His public letter in 2020, in which he excoriated President Trump as a divisive leader who “does not even pretend to try” to unite the country, was a blatant violation of Article 88. While cloaked in the language of statesmanship, Mattis’ words were intended to delegitimize the commander-in-chief in the eyes of the armed forces. He was not alone. Admiral Mike Mullen, another former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, claimed he was “sickened” by Trump’s use of military force to quell violent riots, a remark that cast doubt on the administration’s lawful exercise of authority. Admiral William McRaven went so far as to declare that Trump was “destroying” the country, an inflammatory statement unbecoming of an officer and clearly contemptuous under the UCMJ.
Other notable examples include General John Allen called Trump’s leadership “the beginning of the end of American democracy.” General Martin Dempsey publicly warned against the use of troops domestically, a direct rebuke of the commander-in-chief’s authority. General Colin Powell declared that “Trump lies” and had “drifted away from the Constitution.” General Stanley McChrystal labeled Trump “immoral” and untruthful. General John Kelly openly questioned Trump’s character and honesty. These statements were not policy critiques; they were outright attacks on the legitimacy of civilian leadership.
The contempt did not cease with Trump’s presidency. These same figures, along with General Mark Milley, continued their insubordination by directing their ire toward Secretary Hegseth, undermining his authority before he had even begun his tenure. Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Trump, has reportedly called the new Secretary of Defense “unfit for command,” a direct attack that carries the weight of his former office. General Barry McCaffrey questioned Hegseth’s judgment and ethics, while General Lloyd Austin rebuked Hegseth’s stance on women in combat, declaring “enough already.” Major General William Enyart dismissed Hegseth as “spectacularly unqualified.” These are not mere critiques of policy but attempts to delegitimize the administration’s authority.
The result? A Pentagon where senior officers feel emboldened to openly question the legitimacy of their civilian overseers. The military is not a debating society. It is an institution predicated on hierarchy, order and unwavering discipline. If those at the highest echelons of command believe they can openly defy civilian leadership without consequence, what message does that send to the lower ranks?
This is not a slippery slope argument; it is a reality already unfolding. Recent reports indicate an increase in officers speaking out against administration policies, citing the precedent set by these retired flag officers. The failure to act decisively now will only exacerbate this problem. A military that allows its senior leaders—active or retired—to publicly attack the legitimacy of its commander-in-chief is a military on the path to lawlessness. Today, it is public letters and interviews. Tomorrow, it is coordinated disobedience.
Some will argue that court-martialing retired officers for their words is excessive, even authoritarian. This is nonsense. The precedent for disciplining retired officers is well-established. For example, in 1921, retired Major General Peter C. Harris was reprimanded for public criticisms of the War Department. More recently, in 2010, retired Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was demoted for conduct unbecoming an officer. The UCMJ applies to them for this very reason: to ensure that their conduct does not degrade the integrity of the military. To suggest that Mattis, Mullen, McRaven, Milley and their ilk should be exempt is to assert that senior officers deserve privileges that the rank-and-file do not. A private in the Army who publicly called the president a “threat to the Constitution” would face swift disciplinary action. That generals have been able to say as much, and worse, without consequence is an injustice that must be rectified.
The enforcement of Articles 88 and 133 against these individuals is not a matter of retribution; it is a matter of maintaining discipline, ensuring respect for the chain of command and upholding the principle that military leaders serve under civilian authority. The Biden administration turned a blind eye to the contemptuous rhetoric from these figures because it was politically expedient. The Trump administration must not repeat that mistake. If Secretary Hegseth allows these violations to go unpunished, he will not only undermine his own authority but embolden future insubordination. These men must be made an example of. The future of civilian-military relations depends on it.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
READ NEXT: Washington Post Opinion Editor Resigns After Bezos Announces Editorial Shift
Deny the communist generals their military pension.
Very Serious;
Rally do not know enough about this entangled situation to make a final judgment – YET!
Seems like if our military branch and intelligence agencies do not “shape up” they will need to be “shipped out” — they DO need to be made examples of what happens when the UCMJ is blatantly disregarded. We may need to start all over with healthy leadership, send the rest to Leavenworth or Gitmo! If that doesn’t straighten the rest out, try military executions. This behavior is totally unacceptable and will destroy our nation if left unchecked!
And Governor Walz who lied about his Rank and Combat Deployments should be demoted and Court Martialed also!
Mattis, Mullen, McRaven, Milley and their ilk should be stripped of their rank, and lose their retirement. they put on their pants the same way as the enlisted and junior officers, who, if saying the things these Flag officers did, have and are fall under the same UCMJ rules.
Glad they are caught court marshal these incompetent military so called leaders they are not to bring their personal views in the military they have to remain equal to what party is in charge demoncrates, republicans, or even a other than the 2 main parties, take away or cut retirement, benefits they have proved not good enough to get Taxpayers money or at least reduced a lot why didn’t these idiots speak up when obama started sissying our military then biden even worse, we have to have good Pretty good moral strong men women that know their place is to Serve the American People, Our Constitution as Written, no matter who is in office, and be ready to defend the American People the Constitution as Written, against all ALL enemies even those in our government, biden should have been removed, obama, should have been removed they did terrible things, deeds, like selling guns to the cartels, letting our men die in Benghazi, open borders allowing criminals in this country, force immoral garbage on the American People, and forcing Taxpayers to pay for the immoral crimes, so much more those 2 did that should have been removed
Get at it then!
If it was an enlisted person, they would already be in jail. These requirements were pretty basic
Role model
Examples for
This article says it all. Now, when will the Court Marshals begin? If a subordinate to these officers said the same things about them they would automatically be Court Marshaled. I think reduction in rank and loss of security clearance and pension would be an appropriate punishment.
Truman – MacArthur
The root problem here is the promotion of these officers to General in the first place. Had Clinton, Obama, and Biden not placed a priority on political correctness for advancement, these guys never would have been promoted past Colonel. Having to demonstrate that you are a proponent of left-leaning politics and DEI/Wokism in order to be advanced ensures that such political animals end up rising to the top. It is no wonder that they act as they do. It is what they inherently believe and were rewarded for. It will take 5-10 years to purge much of the Flag ranks with true apolitical warriors.
When laws, rules, codes or the Constitution is ignored we are on the way to destruction and anarchy.
All General/Flag officers have a DUTY to the Nation to support the President, our Commander in Chief, by maintaining the discipline they espoused while on ACTIVE duty. Tell-All articles and opinions by retired Flag officers only serve the Democrats & socialists hiding in the Federal bureaucracy.
As a former member of the US Army 12/66-12/68 I fully agree with the content of this article. Further I feel that every officer who is active or retired can be held accountable under the UCMJ just as any enlisted man is. Action MUST be taken in order to maintain the quality and disipline necessary to have an effective military structuer. The military is not a democratic organization, it is military and is governed by the UCMJ.
Upholding the highest standards of conduct is not just a duty as a military officer; it’s a cornerstone of effective leadership and discipline. Understanding what constitutes conduct-unbecoming is crucial for officers at all levels.
Insubordination by an officer refers to behavior that disrespects or defies the authority of a superior officer and/or a commander-in-chief of the military. Insubordination is a serious offense under military law, as it disrupts the chain of command and undermines military discipline and order.
These actions were conducted by General Patton and General MacArthur before and after WWII. They both traveled thin lines from charges by President Truman and President Eisenhower.
Those senior officers/active or retired should face thorough investigations for committing the infractions and breaching their fiduciary responsibilities as flag officers. They took an Oath. The minimum penalties should entail demotion and pension reductions.
Thank you for this powerful and timely information. This is a subject that must be addressed on a timely basis or the entire military may conclude that respect for the Chain of Command no longer applies, leading to terrible consequences. We must all contact our elected servants to enlist their support in advising President Trump he must act now for the sake of our Republic.
I spent a number of years as an army officer, and left active duty to obtain my law degree. I am modestly versed in the UCMJ, but much more so in Constitutional Law. The matter of retired officers commenting on political matters is somewhat controversial — I greatly admire General George C. Marshall’s approach in making no comments — but it likely is untenable to suggest that retired officers can be disciplined for making politically-oriented comments against the president or, by extension, on behalf of political candidates who may be running against an incumbent president.
I know retired flag officers who believe in self-restraint in such matters, while others believe it is their further duty to comment on political matters, including the competence of a president, because (they reason) few know more about national defense matters and therefore those retired officers are in a position to better educated the public — including to speak freely because they are retired.
At a particular extreme are those who are “willing to sell the uniform.” In return for giving a candidate credibility, the retired officer will be rewarded if his candidate wins. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is in 1992 when the candidacy of Bill Clinton was under assault due to his “draft dodging,” and retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral William Crowe then endorsed Clinton, dampening that controversy. Crowe thus endorsed a candidate running against an incumbent president (George H.W. Bush.)
After his election, President Clinton appointed Admiral Crowe to the much-coveted ambassadorship to London. (Any coincidence?)
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other major publications often have full-page ads signed by dozens, even hundreds, of retired flag officers weighing in on national policy — and by extension the wisdom of the policy of the president. No one complains, nor should they.
No one questions the authority of Congress and the military to promulgate the Uniform Code of Military Justice pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution which empowers Congress “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” However, retired offices no longer are part of the military for purposes of discipline. As has been said in other contexts, no one forfeits his First Amendment right to free expression simply because he served in the military, but no longer does so.
Would the author of this article suggest that a retired officer who posted a political lawn sign supporting a candidate against an incumbent president be subject to UCMJ discipline? How about if the retired officer made a political contribution which was listed on some political flyer?
Would the author of the article have taken this same position if in early 2024 a retired member of the Joint Chiefs had said that President Biden no longer had the mental capacity to be the commander-in-chief? Or would most Americans have complimented that flag officer for alerting the public to a situation which might compromise our national security?
In an event, should a dispute end up in the courts regarding the ability of the Secretary of Defense to punish retired officers pursuant to the UCMJ versus the First Amendment right of those retired officers to criticize the president, I’m pretty confident that that case would result in a slam dunk victory for the First Amendment.