A United States Air Force officer who was arrested twice, including once on the steps of the US Capitol while calling for the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump, has been formally charged over his comments.
Maj. Jason Watson faces 10 charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to a charging document shared with CNN by his attorney.
The charges include three violations of Article 88 for allegedly making “contemptuous” remarks about Trump, five violations of Article 92 for allegedly disobeying orders and two violations of Article 133 for alleged conduct unbecoming an officer.
The rare Article 88 charges are linked to Watson’s June interview with the Defenders of our Republic Substack newsletter, his July 1 protest in uniform at the US Capitol and an August 17 interview with CNN.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, military personnel can violate the law by participating in uniform in overtly partisan activities, including political protests, or by using “contemptuous words” against the president and other senior civilian officials.
While many low-level offences involving the rules are resolved informally, Watson’s alleged violations have attracted unusual attention because of their high-profile nature.
Watson was first arrested in July while protesting in uniform at the US Capitol and was arrested again last week, days after criticising Trump during a CNN interview.
One of his attorneys, Chris Mutimer, told CNN that Watson had been ordered to remain in “pre-trial confinement”, an action analogous to the denial of bail in civilian court, pending legal proceedings.
“Not only is (Trump) a failure as president, he is flagrantly violating the Constitution, breaking the law, engaged in rampant corruption, and is killing Americans,” Watson told CNN’s Erin Burnett during the interview.
“And that is unacceptable to me.”
In July, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said in a social media post that he expected all airmen to comply with “all laws and policies governing personal conduct, political participation, and the wear of the uniform”.
“Americans place their trust in us,” Meink said. “We cannot, and will not, compromise the trust of the nation.”
The charges of disobeying orders allege that Watson violated Defence Department regulations prohibiting troops from speaking out in favour of partisan causes; “wrongfully” wore his uniform at a Capitol press conference; breached leave regulations by travelling to Washington, DC; and refused to wear his uniform to work the morning after his CNN interview.
Air Force prosecutors also alleged that Watson’s Capitol protest and CNN interview constituted conduct unbecoming an officer.
Mutimer told CNN’s Erin Burnett on “OutFront” that he spoke with Watson on Monday and that his client was “basically in solitary confinement for his safety”.
Mutimer said Watson “truly believes in everything about our constitution and what it represents, and the oath that he swore”, adding that he stood by his decision because “he did this so others wouldn’t have to, and to share that to anyone who’s scared and feels alone”.
Jessica Denson, founder of the Removal Coalition, the organisation that organised the July protest, told CNN at the time that Watson was aware of the risks involved and had contacted the group by email.
“We started having conversations and took this desire that he had to come out very seriously and thought about the best way to make his sacrifice worth it,” Denson said.
Military courts-martial resulting in “contempt of officials” charges are rare. A CNN review identified only two such convictions since the modern Uniform Code of Military Justice was enacted in 1951.
In 1965, an Army lieutenant was convicted after participating in an off-base protest against the Vietnam War in El Paso, Texas.
Lt Henry Howe was sentenced to dismissal from the service, the equivalent of a dishonourable discharge for an officer, and one year in the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Defence Secretary Robert McNamara later granted Howe parole, ending his sentence early.
The most recent Article 88 conviction came in 2021, when former Marine Corps Lt Col Stuart Scheller pleaded guilty to contempt of officials and other charges linked to a series of social media videos in which he criticised the Biden administration’s handling of the US military’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Scheller, who was confined to the brig for a period before his trial, was sentenced to forfeiture of $5,000 in pay and resigned from the Marine Corps without a pension as part of a plea agreement.
The Trump administration has since appointed Scheller as a senior adviser to the Pentagon’s undersecretary for personnel and readiness.
Frank Rosenblatt, a retired Army judge advocate and associate law professor at Mississippi Christian University, told CNN that the standard for “contemptuous” words was “less than precise” in guidance provided to military judges and panel members, who are similar to jurors.
Rosenblatt said remarks considered “contemptuous” under Article 88 must constitute “insulting, rude, and disdainful conduct, or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another a quality of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness”.
He suggested that a pre-trial hearing known as an Article 32 proceeding may be required to determine whether Watson’s remarks instead “are true or are fair criticisms” of the president.
It remains unclear whether Watson’s case will be referred to trial and, if so, whether it will be heard by a special or general court-martial.
Special courts-martial are broadly equivalent to misdemeanour trials, while general courts-martial are analogous to felony trials and can impose more severe sentences.
The Air Force did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent on Monday.
In an August 19 statement to CNN, however, an Air Force spokesperson said Watson “is presumed innocent” and that the Air Force District of Washington would oversee his trial “if (his) case is referred to a General Court-Martial”.
The story was updated with additional details.
CNN’s Piper Hudspeth Blackburn, Carmen Conte Widman and Francesca Giuliani Hoffman contributed to the report.