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.
