The Pentagon has initiated an extensive review of numerous social media posts that seem to originate from U.S. service members in the aftermath of the assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk. This situation came to the military's attention through various channels, prompting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to issue a stern warning against any commentary that either mocks or praises Kirk's killing. In a post on X, Hegseth stated, “We are tracking all these very closely — and will address, immediately. Completely unacceptable.”
As a result of this scrutiny, at least one Marine officer has been removed from recruiting duties pending an investigation into their social media activity. Additionally, five Army officers and one Army reserve officer have been suspended while their posts undergo review, according to service officials. The exact number of service members across various military branches being investigated for comments related to Kirk remains unclear. Some military personnel have even faced online backlash for merely quoting statements Kirk made in the past.
Current and former service members, alongside some congressional members such as GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden from Wisconsin, have actively flagged posts and tagged the Defense Department on social media platforms. Notable accounts like the far-right Libs of TikTok, which boasts over 4 million followers on X, and Mostly Peaceful Memes have also participated in this campaign. Defense officials have indicated that the consequences for service members will vary based on the nature of their comments and whether they are civilian employees or uniformed service members.
While civilians enjoy broad protections under free speech, service members are subject to stricter limitations that fall under military directives and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). For instance, service members could face disciplinary action for breaching Article 92, which mandates adherence to regulations, or Article 134, which prohibits conduct deemed discrediting to the armed forces. Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and military prosecutor, noted, “It’s very easy to frame commentary — even somewhat benign commentary — about Charlie Kirk as somehow a violation of the UCMJ.”
Proving that a service member has violated the UCMJ in a court martial may prove challenging. Maurer explained that prosecutors must demonstrate that the posts either incite violence or could be prejudicial to good order and discipline. A relevant precedent can be found in a 2008 case involving an Army soldier whose expression of white supremacist views online was not deemed a violation of Article 134. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that speech must have a direct impact on military operations or environment to be considered prejudicial, which was not established in that case.
In addition to court martial proceedings, there are non-judicial measures available for disciplining troops. These can include letters of reprimand, which may hinder career advancement or result in a loss of pay or rank. When questioned about the number of service members under investigation, the Pentagon directed inquiries to individual service branches.
Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell stated, “We will not tolerate military or civilian personnel who celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American.” He emphasized that individuals in the military who display such sentiments are unfit to serve the American people. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll acknowledged that while he could not provide an estimate of the posts under review, the Army is taking each instance seriously, ensuring that appropriate action is taken based on the specifics of each case. Driscoll reiterated his commitment on X, stating, “Posts that celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American are inconsistent with Army values.”
Similar sentiments were echoed by other service secretaries, including Navy Secretary John Phelan and Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink, who also addressed the situation on social media last week.
