Pentagon Hunting Down Employees Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Death
A little bit more than the law would allow.
NBC News (“Pete Hegseth tells Pentagon staff to hunt for negative Charlie Kirk posts by service members“):
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has told his staff to identify any members of the military who have mocked or condoned the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk so that they can be punished, two defense officials told NBC News.
Several service members have been relieved from their jobs because of such posts, the officials said, adding that Hegseth’s directive also pertains to others associated with the Defense Department. It’s unclear exactly how many people have been disciplined.
Hegseth and other senior Pentagon leaders posted messages on X this week calling on the public to report any posts that could be interpreted as negative about Kirk or unsympathetic about his murder.
“We are tracking all these very closely — and will address, immediately. Completely unacceptable,” Hegseth wrote on X Thursday.
His post was in response to Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell saying on X, “It is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American.”
“The Department of War has zero tolerance for it,” Parnell added, using the secondary name for the Defense Department.
Many social media users have heeded the call, assisting Hegseth and the Pentagon in finding and flagging posts. Dozens of service members and civilian Pentagon employees have had their posts highlighted and collected under the hashtag #RevolutionariesintheRanks.
Some of the posts in that collection don’t necessarily condone or mock Kirk’s murder but have been viewed as unfavorable — including one that read, “I don’t give a s— about Charlie Kirk.”
Others have been much harsher. “The hatred you spew is enough to get you what you deserve pal,” one post read.
One U.S. military officer said troops know they are not allowed to condone political violence, but being fired for criticizing a person, particularly a civilian who has no ties to the military, is extremely rare.
“We can’t criticize the commander in chief, but I can’t remember anyone ever telling me we can’t say anything critical about a civilian like this. He was not in our chain of command or anything,” the officer said.
Far-right activist Laura Loomer, a close ally of President Donald Trump, has called for the investigation of an Army major general, saying on X that his son had posted online that Kirk was a “racist homophobe misogynist.”
She said the son works for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and called on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to “fire” him. Loomer also said Hegseth should “review the employment” of his father.
A spokesperson for FEMA said the “employee’s words are revolting and unconscionable” and he “was immediately placed on administrative leave.”
While I find celebrating the murder of an American citizen for exercising his free speech rights distasteful, doing so is protected speech under the First Amendment. Charlie Kirk would certainly agree with that.
To be sure, military personnel and, to a much lesser extent, civilian employees of the government have more constraints on their speech than ordinary citizens. Most notably, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice declares,
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
In reality, prosecution of this Article is rare, limited to especially egregious and public cases. Indeed, while General Stanley McChrystal was famously forced to resign after Rolling Stone published some unfortunate Bud Light Lime-fueled commentary by his team, he was not only not prosecuted but allowed to retire as a four-star with full benefits.
Regardless, Kirk was a private citizen and an avowed controversialist. There is no prohibition whatsoever against service members or other government employees criticizing him.
All government employees are subject to the provisions of the Hatch Act, and a handful of employees (mostly those in the Senior Executive Service and employees of certain intelligence agencies) have some restrictions regarding “activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.” But, again, this doesn’t apply to the circumstances at hand.
Furthermore, “Civilian personnel may generally express their personal views on public issues or political candidates via personal accounts on social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, or personal blogs, in the same way they could write a letter to the editor of a newspaper” so long as they make it clear they are not speaking in their official capacity.
There are catch-all provisions against speech that may “undermine good order and discipline.” But it’s beyond a stretch to apply them here.
That said, given the atmosphere under this administration, some degree of caution is warranted. These are not ordinary times.
If Army officers are being tasked with an illegal investigation, surely the officers will refuse to obey that illegal order.
Right?
Imagine being a military recruiter these days…..
All this over the death of a third-rate provocateur that most people had never heard of until now.
Conservatives are inherently fearful people. We explain the whys of Trump via mass politics–polarizations, two parties, partisanship. The guy who apparently killed Kirk was 22. He was 11 when Trump was first elected. He spent half his life surrounded by people who supported Trump, not a mass of voters. No doubt, he drew many of his own conclusions about right and wrong and politics based on how they acted. Right now, there’s a 16 year old kid surrounded by Trump voters talking about violence is terrible and nobody should condone it. Then they go online and finds out that Charlie Kirk was talking about how he wanted public executions of Trump’s critics. What conclusions is this kid drawing?
@Modulo Myself:
Although if that kid is listening to the president his family voted for, he is hearing that right-wing extremism is ok because they just are fed up with crime and that the “radical left” is responsible and should be punished.
Which I say to amplify and deepen your point.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yeah, I don’t envy anyone who has to deal with parents they love who end up aligned with Trump. I imagine there are bullying appeals to be the better person in that situation. It can not be a good way to grow up. And I think part of the fears Trump plays on are based on this.
This guy was in the middle of Utah. He spent a semester in college. I read an interview with another guy from Utah talking about ‘being too online’ and the dangers of it. It’s a good point. But what does that mean? I feel like being online in many contexts is following the news and analyzing it with people who are coerced into the better person for the sake of the community. This can cut both ways. With people who think that being racist is bad optics, they can shed the optics. For people who think they have to pull their punches about their parents, they can start punching.
Easy way to identify and purge subordinates prone to wrongthink. Which would include service members who might question orders like using the military to occupy cities or screen voters against the national voter database they’re developing.
@Michael Reynolds: One imagines an appointed official, like the General Counsel, will issue a finding that such commentary violates Article 134 (“good order and discipline”), which will essentially tie the hands of uniformed lawyers. Once again, it will come down to the courts to adjudicate.
The Free Speech party!
No doubt Bari Weiss will be coming to the rescue any minute now.
@Steven L. Taylor:
The worst part of all that, is that the wingnut extremists are fed up largely about imaginary crime.
They don’t have to actually go through with any hunting. They’ve already chilled free speech for anyone in DOD, and perhaps anywhere in the government, who wants to keep their job