Legal action under military law is being taken against U.S. Air Force Maj. Jason Watson, known for his repeated public calls for President Donald Trump’s impeachment.
Watson was formally charged with 10 counts under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Air Force confirmed to Military.com. Charges include three rare counts of showing contempt toward government officials.
He faces charges under Article 88 for contempt toward officials, Article 92 for dereliction of duty and Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer. A charging document Watson’s attorney shared with CNN lists three specifications under Article 88, five under Article 92 and two under Article 133.
Watson, 40, a father of two who has served 17 years and is about three years from retirement, could be dismissed from the service and lose his pay and benefits if convicted, his attorney has said. He also faces the possibility of confinement.
Being charged, a step known in the military as preferral, does not mean the case will go to trial. A preliminary hearing, if required, would determine whether there is probable cause to believe an offense was committed and recommend how the case should proceed, according to the Air Force.
If the case is referred to a general court-martial, the commander of the Air Force District of Washington would serve as the convening authority who decides whether it goes to trial.
“Charges are merely allegations,” the service said, “and the member is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”
A Rare Charge
Three Article 88 counts are the unusual element.
The provision allows a commissioned officer to be punished for using “contemptuous words” against the president, the vice president, Congress or other named officials, and it is seldom invoked.
It applies only to commissioned officers, and prosecutors must show the words were contemptuous rather than merely critical.
Chris Mutimer, one of Watson’s attorneys, told CNN that his client is the first major in the history of the military to be charged under Article 88. Mutimer has cast the case as a matter of conscience, saying Watson “stands by the fact that he did this so others wouldn’t have to” and acted knowing the risks to his career and freedom.
Asked about the balance between discipline and speech, the Air Force pointed to a September 2025 memo from Air Force Secretary Troy Meink on public communications.
That memo stated that every airman and guardian is responsible for complying with the laws and regulations governing speech and political activities, adding that speech or conduct that violates lawful regulations, brings discredit to the service, or undermines good order and discipline, should be addressed directly and immediately.
Service members do not have the same latitude as civilians to criticize elected leaders. For this reason, Watson’s case falls under the military justice system rather than ordinary politics. Defense Department rules also restrict partisan political activity by troops in uniform.
How the Case Got Here
Watson first drew national attention on July 1 when U.S. Capitol Police arrested him after he appeared in uniform on the Capitol steps, holding a sign that read, “Impeach. Convict. Remove.” He called for the removal of Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
Members of the public are generally not permitted to demonstrate on the Capitol steps.
He was arrested again Aug. 17, the day after an interview with CNN in which he renewed his criticism of the president, and was ordered into pretrial confinement the following day.
In that interview, Watson called Trump a failure as president and accused him of violating the Constitution, among other criticisms.
Air Force officials have said his statements do not reflect the views of the service.
Watson will remain in pretrial confinement, the Air Force said, while it reviews the charges and evidence to determine whether the case should be tried by court-martial.
Pretrial confinement, under military law, is not a finding of guilt but a determination that there is reason to hold a service member while a case proceeds. The service said it would not release further details to protect the integrity of the investigation and the rights of the accused.
Airmen are afforded due process and are considered innocent until proven guilty, the Air Force said, and it would not release additional details about the evidence while the case proceeds.
Referred court-martial cases are listed on the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps public docket.
Read the full article here