An active-duty Air Force officer facing military charges for publicly calling for former President Donald Trump’s impeachment defended his actions during a preliminary hearing on Friday. Major Jason Watson, arrested in uniform during a July protest at the U.S. Capitol, made his first court statement, asserting that his conduct was driven by a commitment to uphold the Constitution rather than partisan politics.
The hearing, known as an Article 32 proceeding, is an early stage in the military justice process designed to determine whether Watson’s case should advance to a court-martial. Military prosecutors argued that Watson violated departmental regulations and the Constitution by making “vitriolic attacks” against the president. They cited comments he made during the Capitol protest, where he accused Trump of multiple constitutional breaches, including military actions in Iran and Venezuela, immigration policies, and dismantling parts of the federal government.
Watson also participated in a televised interview in August, reiterating his critical stance toward Trump’s leadership and expressing hope that his protest would encourage other Americans to take action. Prosecutors further linked Watson to a June 2025 anonymous Substack post characterizing Trump as “a greedy, unintelligent, narcissistic, pathological liar, traitor, and coward.”
Following the CNN interview, Watson was detained on his military base after informing his chain of command that he would no longer wear his uniform. He has remained in pretrial confinement since that time. His attorney, Christopher Mutimer, noted that this detention followed his open refusal to comply with uniform policies.
Watson faces ten charges under multiple articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including Article 88 for using contemptuous language against senior officials, Article 92 for failure to obey orders, and Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer. Possible penalties include years of imprisonment, loss of pay and benefits, and dishonorable discharge.
The four-hour hearing, presided over by Major Joshua Wendell, also involved the removal of a public spectator after an unsanctioned comment. Wendell is expected to recommend later this month whether Watson’s case should proceed to a court-martial and, if so, whether it should be a special or general court-martial.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between First Amendment protections and military discipline. Service members are subject to strict restrictions on political speech while in uniform, and prosecutions under Article 88 are notably rare. Experts note only two convictions under this article since the Uniform Code of Military Justice was established in 1951.
One precedent involved Lieutenant Henry Howe, convicted after participating in a 1965 anti-Vietnam War protest. The other case concerned Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Scheller, a Marine who was disciplined in 2021 after posting social media videos—some in uniform—criticizing the Biden administration’s Afghanistan withdrawal. Scheller resigned as part of a plea agreement, receiving a reprimand and forfeiting pay.
These past cases illustrate the military’s limited but firm enforcement of restrictions on public dissent among officers, positioning Watson’s case as a significant test of the balance between free speech and military obligation.