Air Force Maj. Jason Watson sat behind a keyboard 14 months ago to share his thoughts on the commander in chief. “A greedy, unintelligent, narcissistic, pathological liar, traitor, and coward,” he wrote in his anonymous Substack channel as part of a larger missive against President Donald Trump.
Watson became more public in his statements — demonstrating in July outside the U.S. Capitol, in uniform, by name, while holding a sign stating “Impeach, Convict, Remove.”
At the time, Watson said that any consequences he faced would only underscore the importance of his message.
Now, those possible consequences appear to be taking shape in a detailed list of military charges filed against him last week.
Watson faces 10 counts covering six incidents: the Substack post, two media interviews, the Capitol steps protest, and two accusations of disobeying orders involving personal travel and his more recent uniform requirements. The Air Force said he made improperly “contemptuous” remarks about the president and engaged in dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming of an officer.
If convicted on all counts, according to military law experts, the 17-year veteran will probably lose all retirement pay and benefits and could face time in a military prison.
Watson’s case highlights the high standards that military officers are held to when it comes to criticizing the president and other officials. It pits the importance of political neutrality in the armed forces versus an active-duty major who says his oath to the Constitution is driving his actions.
“If I don’t sacrifice something, if I don’t give something up, then it’s just words. And words are easy to ignore,” Watson said in an Aug. 17 interview with CNN. “We just have to be willing to accept that we can change what is happening in our country if we’re just willing to pay a price for it.”
The charges do not mean Watson will face a military trial. An Air Force spokesperson said the evidence against Watson will be reviewed while he remains in pretrial confinement. In a statement last month, Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink said the investigation is driven by concerns over conduct that could “undermine the nonpartisan nature of our military.”
The White House declined to comment.
Watson’s attorney, Christopher Mutimer, declined to discuss the specific charges. In an earlier statement, he said that “Watson stood on those steps knowing exactly what it would cost him.”
The charges against Watson appear well-thought-out, according to three longtime military law attorneys. They said he could face up to 10 years in prison, but given sentencing guidelines, if Watson receives prison time, it will probably range from 90 days to three years.
“It would have been okay if, while not in uniform, he criticized President Trump’s policies. But he crossed several lines,” said Joshua Tolin, a former active-duty military prosecutor who now represents service members as a defense attorney.
Watson’s first three counts allege violations of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which bars “contemptuous words” being used against the president, vice president and other public officials. The article does not define “contemptuous,” but it generally covers “personally insulting or mocking” language, according to Robert Capovilla, another former active-duty military prosecutor now in private practice.
“Making those statements is a problem for him. They appear to be contemptuous by their nature,” Capovilla said.
His military law firm, with 17 attorneys, has represented branch members across the political spectrum in political speech cases. But the cases often involve a single social media post by an enlisted member that was not intended for wide public consumption. The military generally handles such cases administratively: a letter of reprimand or, at worst, separation from the service, Capovilla said. Cases that rise to contemptuous language charges, he said, are almost unheard of.
“It’s very rare to see these charges, but it’s just as rare to see an officer make these kinds of comments in such open forums,” the attorney said.
The case underscores how signing up for the military means signing off on certain freedoms. “People sometimes are shocked that service members don’t get to exercise the constitutional rights that the rest of us do,” said Gary Barthel, a defense attorney and former active-duty military prosecutor. “All of those military orders that prohibit service members from actively participating in political speech are there for a purpose, and it’s to try to promote that the military is apolitical.”
If they were representing Watson, Barthel, Capovilla and Tolin said they would probably argue that at least some of Watson’s criticisms should be viewed as policy discourse. The questions Barthel said he’d ask: “Was the language he used conventional political rhetoric? Was he describing the president’s conduct rather than expressing a personal disdain?”
But the approach represents a challenge for Watson’s lawyers, Capovilla said, given the nature of Watson’s insults and speech restrictions military members must accept. Nor, the attorneys said, would Watson’s lawyers be likely to get far by arguing that his statements, however biting, were accurate.
“The truth or falsity of the statement doesn’t matter in this context,” Capovilla said.
Watson’s supporters say that extreme times call for extreme measures.
“Our nation and Constitution are under siege by an executive who makes a daily spectacle of his oath, shattering lives and institutions in the process,” said Jessica Denson, who, as the founder of the Removal Coalition, organized Watson’s protest outside the Capitol and has interviewed him on her podcast. “He didn’t ask any of his fellow service members to emulate him, but his sacrifice should put to shame our members of Congress, whose failure to remove Donald Trump from the presidency has forced such a rare act of patriotism.”
A graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Watson entered active duty in 2009, according to an Air Force spokesperson. He served in Alaska, the southwestern U.S., the Pacific Rim, Europe and the Middle East, said Denson. Watson has also served as a logistics readiness officer stationed in Poland with a NATO integration unit.
Last year, Watson started his Substack and used it to document a three-week anonymous hunger strike on the Capitol grounds, during which he wore a skintight white mask and a white jumpsuit while sitting in a lawn chair next to a sign reading “Impeach. Convict. Remove.” None of the Air Force charges relate to the hunger strike, which by design was silent. He read books and communicated with visitors on a whiteboard, according to YouTube videos of his protest that he posted.
This summer, Watson decided to go public.
His July 1 demonstration led U.S. Capitol Police officers to arrest him under a law that generally forbids protesters on the steps unless they are accompanied by a member of Congress. That case was dropped the next day as the Air Force pursued its probe.
Watson was placed under a gag order restricting him from speaking with the press, according to a July 7 statement from his attorney.
A month later, Watson appeared on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.”
“He has failed us,” Watson said of the president. “Not only is he a failure as president, he is flagrantly violating the Constitution, breaking the law, engaged in rampant corruption, and is killing Americans.”
It is unclear whether Watson was still under the gag order at that time.
According to Watson’s charging documents, the Air Force accused him of dereliction of duty related to an interview and the Capitol protest, alleging he had advocated for a “partisan political cause.” Another such count relates to “wrongfully wearing his Air Force service dress uniform” at the Capitol protest.
If military members believe cases against them are politically based, they can seek their dismissal under the notion of “unlawful command influence,” Tolin said.
“Does unlawful command influence exist? Yes, even at the highest levels. Do I think this prosecution is about that? No. The alleged misconduct here is serious,” Tolin said.
Capovilla said the charges against Watson appear to reflect his actions.
“We all have political views, including military officers. If he’d said, ‘Listen, we should question the president’s decision-making here,’ that’s different,” Capovilla said. “What he was doing, especially in uniform, was clearly political activism.”
Watson’s attorney, Mutimer, said his client acted “knowing the risks to his career and his liberty.”
“If Major Watson had one message for everyone watching who is gravely concerned about the state of our democracy,” Mutimer said, “it is this: ‘You are not alone.’”
The post Airman’s ‘contemptuous’ words for Trump lead to high-stakes military charges appeared first on Washington Post.
