On September 3, 2025, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in Washington, D.C. was disrupted by two retired Army officers, Captain Josephine Guilbeau and Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Aguilar, who wore their Class A uniforms while loudly accusing the U.S. government of being complicit in genocide. Guilbeau shouted, “We are being arrested right now for interrupting a foreign affairs hearing on nominations because the U.S. is complicit in genocide! They are complicit in the slaughter of babies!” Aguilar followed with his own warning that Congress was coming after veterans. Capitol Police promptly escorted both from the chamber. The episode raises profound questions, not about U.S. foreign policy, but about the ethical and legal breach committed by the officers when they wore their uniforms as props for a political demonstration.
NEW:
— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) September 5, 2025
🇺🇲🇮🇱 The US military arrested two of his servicemen protesting the US backing of Israel’s genocide of Gaza:
“Rise up America, it is time to take back this country from these corrupt politicians.” pic.twitter.com/gxXkScvb8F
The principle at stake is simple. The uniform of the United States military is not a costume. It is not a theatrical device to amplify one’s message. It signifies service, discipline, and the apolitical nature of the armed forces. The moment an officer, whether active duty, reservist, or retired, dons that uniform to protest, he or she attempts to weaponize the credibility of the entire US military to endorse a political claim. That is impermissible under law, regulation, and basic ethics.
Active duty service members are bound by DoD Directive 1344.10, which explicitly prohibits partisan political activities in uniform. Army Regulation 670-1, Air Force Instruction 36-2903, and Navy and Marine Corps equivalents all forbid wearing uniforms at political events or demonstrations. Reservists, whether on active duty orders or in inactive status, fall under the same rules. A reservist in uniform at a protest communicates the same false impression, that the US military itself endorses the cause.
The status of retirees is sometimes misunderstood. Retired officers are not private citizens in the way the average veteran is. They remain on the retired list, receive retired pay, and are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice under 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(4). They may be recalled to active duty, tried, and punished for misconduct. Service regulations tightly circumscribe the circumstances in which a retiree may wear the uniform: funerals, patriotic ceremonies, parades, and similar occasions. Political protests are not on that list. A retiree who dons Class A’s to disrupt a Senate hearing is violating lawful regulations and is subject to UCMJ enforcement.
The relevant UCMJ articles are not obscure. Article 88 prohibits contemptuous words against officials. Guilbeau’s cry that Congress is complicit in genocide qualifies as contemptuous toward the very institution she disrupted. Article 92 punishes failure to obey lawful regulations. Unauthorized wear of the uniform at a political protest is precisely that. Article 133 proscribes conduct unbecoming an officer, a broad provision designed to safeguard the dignity of the officer corps. Shouting accusations of genocide while in uniform before Congress falls squarely under this article. Finally, Article 134, the general article, punishes conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting behavior. The spectacle on September 3 discredited the armed forces in the eyes of the nation.
The defense sometimes offered is that retirees have free speech rights as private citizens. That is true, up to a point. Guilbeau and Aguilar had every right to attend the hearing, to object, and to voice their criticisms, in civilian clothes. What they could not do is cloak their dissent in the authority of the uniform. That distinction matters. The uniform belongs not to the individual but to the institution. It is lent to the service member for honorable service, not for political theater.
The ethics here mirror the law. Americans rightly respect veterans and trust the armed forces as the most apolitical of national institutions. When a retired officer uses the uniform to gain attention, she manipulates that trust. She seeks to draw notice not because of the merits of her argument but because of the symbolism of the uniform. That is a deception. It is calculated to confer unearned legitimacy on the protester’s personal opinion. It is, at bottom, a form of stolen authority.
Some may object that recalling retirees for trial is extreme. In reality, it is necessary. The law provides for recall precisely to maintain the integrity of the officer corps. Without enforcement, regulations become meaningless. A formal reprimand, loss of retired pay, and short confinement would make clear that the uniform is not a political prop. The goal is not cruelty but deterrence. Other retirees must see that wearing Class A’s to protest in Congress will not be tolerated.
The separation of the military from politics is not a minor norm. It is a cornerstone of American democracy. Civilian control of the military depends on a professional officer corps that is scrupulously apolitical in public. The visual of uniformed officers denouncing Congress as genocidal is corrosive to that principle. The damage is not undone by the fact that Guilbeau and Aguilar are retired. To the public eye, they were officers in uniform. That image carries consequences far beyond their personal grievances.
Congress and the Department of Defense must act. Allowing this to pass without sanction invites repetition. The regulations exist, the UCMJ provides the mechanism, and the facts are not in dispute. Both officers wore their uniforms to a political protest, in violation of clear law. Both officers disparaged Congress while doing so. Both officers disrupted the proceedings of civilian government. They should be recalled, tried, and punished accordingly. Anything less undermines the rule of law and the honor of the uniform.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
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: Elite Police Unit Crushes Top Dems After Union Erupts
Truth
That LTC has enough badges to sink a ship. In the turbulent early 70s, there was a character running around L.A. calling himself General Hershey Bar, as the General in charge of the Selective Servce was Hershey. Hershey Bar wore a uniform on which he had glues plastic jet planes on his shoulders, and other strange stuff. Seemed to be normal otherwise, but definitely anti-war. Talked with him several times when working the downtown area!