Troops self-censor and purge social media amid Pentagon crackdown on political speech

• Troops are cleaning up their social media amid fears of a Pentagon crackdown on political speech.

• “I had to get my nickname off LinkedIn,” a Marine sergeant told Business Insider.

• Pentagon leaders have said their moves are aimed at depoliticizing the military.

Pentagon leadership’s increasingly tight grip on speech critical of conservatives and the Trump administration is fueling anxiety in the ranks and has some service members scrambling to protect their careers.

In interviews with Business Insider, the troops and legal counsel detailed how behavior has changed amid the recent crackdown, which faces some administrative actions that can end a career without a court-martial.

• One field officer has deactivated his Facebook and avoids responding to colleagues who submit news stories, worried he will be baited to criticize the Trump administration.

• An enlisted Marine says a mentor warned her to erase any public support for progressive causes.

“I had to take my pronoun off of LinkedIn. I scrubbed everything that ever mentioned or supported” LGBTQ causes, the Marine sergeant told Business Insider. She said her mentor warned that Pentagon officials could be looking for “anything that could be interpreted as contrary to the vision that the current administration has.”

These individual acts of self-censorship mirror a wider thrill sweeping the ranks, especially as repression has erupted at its highest level. Tensions flared again this week when the Defense Department said it was launching a command investigation of Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly after a preliminary review of his video urging troops to defy illegal orders.

The Trump administration says it has a prerogative to police speech it finds offensive or inappropriate, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said the administration’s policies are meant to “take the politics out” of the services. Some military law experts say the control and its repercussions are an abuse of military authority.

One sticking point was the September killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Top Pentagon leaders said it was “unacceptable” for troops to “celebrate or mock” the assassination.

After Kirk was killed, some service members online said things like “glad he’s dead.” Others criticized his rhetoric or, more broadly, complained about the policies of the Trump administration or conservatives. In one case, a colonel was suspended for complaining to friends about the angry arguments that followed Kirk’s death.

More than 120 service members have been investigated for political comments since Kirk’s death, according to a count reported by The Washington Post.

Nearly a dozen military law experts told Business Insider that the punishments generally won’t hold up in a military courtroom because they don’t have the elements of speech crimes, such as “disparaging” words against an elected leader or because the comments are unrelated to the military and not said in uniform.

“What we’re seeing now is the abuse of speech restrictions,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School and a retired Air Force JAG who is an expert on military speech.

“Our service members understand that their rights are more restricted in the military. Now they are afraid to give up the rights that they actually have,” she said. “It’s unprecedented.”

A wide range of charges

Military leaders have revealed they are tracking ‘unprofessional’ use of social media. An October message from the Navy secretary encouraged sailors and Marines to “refrain from engaging on social media” about official government or military policies.

“This is more than just police manners,” said Frank Rosenblatt, a professor at Mississippi College School of Law and a retired Army JAG. “A broader tilt by the military seems to really serve what they’re trying to do — identify these people in the deep state who are politically untrustworthy.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice imposes some restrictions on troops, criminalizing speech that disrespects officers and civilian leaders, or that undermines obedience to orders. Troops retain many First Amendment protections; hate speech, for example, is legal unless it has a military connection, such as if it was uttered on a base or on a warship.

The hunt for speech crimes fuels suspicion and mistrust among some. The field officer who shut down her Facebook said she now worries that a casual remark might strike her as liberal and therefore politically suspect.

She began scrutinizing parts of her career she never imagined—where her office is, who works nearby, whether to respond to articles shared in group chats, and even whether to travel with colleagues she doesn’t know well.

“It only takes one person to flag you up as disloyal to end your career — or worse,” said the officer, who requested anonymity to avoid official retaliation.

Read more about the workforce issues facing the US military:

Sign up for Defense Flash, Business Insider’s weekly newsletter covering war, military strategy and defense technology.

“You’d better be careful”

Don C. King, a civilian defense attorney, said he recently received a call from a concerned service member. They wrote a social media post criticizing the Trump administration’s deadly attacks on suspected drug-trafficking boats near Venezuela. Someone at their command saw it and said, “Hey, you better be careful with your social media.”

“I’ve been in the military my entire adult life, over 30 years, and I’ve never seen any of the services or the DoD take down social media for what they consider to be inappropriate speech,” said King, who retired as a Navy JAG in 2022 and owns the King Military Law firm specializing in military clients.

Charges against rank-and-file troops go through the military’s administrative system, which can discipline troops and end careers outside of public court proceedings.

“These cases are early and both the government and the affected individuals are figuring out how they want to fight,” said Eugene R. Fidell, an influential military law expert and senior scholar at Yale. “The mere wear and tear of having to defend and try to overturn one of these administrative sanctions is in itself a punishment.”

The First Amendment’s restrictions on troops stem from the military’s apolitical role and its reliance on obedience to order. Officers can face criminal penalties for “disparaging” words to the president, as can all personnel for disrespecting a superior officer. However, bands can comment politically, donate to a campaign, or display stickers. Their protection is strongest when their comments are personal, made out of uniform, and without any trace of official approval.

Social media can amplify a service member’s comments far beyond a sticker, regardless of intent. That poses greater risks that the military as an institution could be seen as supporting a political party or cause, said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who wrote a 2023 book, “Thanks For Your Service,” about how much trust in the military depended on beliefs about its competence and avoiding partisan politics.

“The military is becoming a combatant in the culture wars,” he said. Part of the way to change that, he said, “requires the military not to look like they’re culture warriors.”

“So you might have the right to say it, but it wouldn’t be right to say it,” he added.

Military law criminalizes conduct that dishonors an officer or is prejudicial to good order and discipline; however, case law has set a high standard when the conduct at issue is purely private speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment.

Brent Sadler, a defense expert at a major conservative think tank, said monitoring the speech is justified to enforce the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“The issue is more about professionalism and protecting any semblance of the military that interferes with civilian political control,” said Sadler, a retired Navy captain and senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

“I think a lot of conservatives in the military have been persecuted legally and professionally,” he said, pointing to the 8,000 soldiers expelled for refusing the COVID-19 vaccination mandate before the Pentagon rescinded it in 2023.

Mark Jensen, a former Army JAG who retired earlier this year, said Pentagon policing has expanded in recent months from “disparaging” speeches about Kirk, to rebukes of his policies, to advocacy for transgender people, to criticism of the Trump administration.

Jensen represents four military clients and one civilian who face penalties for their speech. The fact that some of the allegations are public is the result of an online anti-“woke” army that publishes hearsay and leaked commentary on sites like X.

In addition to being “smeared,” Jensen said, these troops suffer the stress of an investigation, a relief if they’re in charge, a bad evaluation, a reprimand from a general and face a review that can reduce their rank.

“It’s like a 1-2-3-4-5 punch,” Jensen said. “All with minimal due process.”

Kelly isn’t the only veteran unexpectedly facing punishment. In one recent case, a former soldier in the inactive reserve — a list of those who can be reactivated in the event of a national emergency — told a civilian attorney that he was being investigated by military officials for a private social media post, the attorney said.

“Even when people are in the normal reserves, the regulations are pretty clear that civilian conduct should not be punished in a military capacity,” said Cody Harnish, a private defense attorney and former Army JAG who specializes in UCMJ cases.

“They’re way out of their depth here.”

Staff writer Kelsey Baker contributed to this report.

Read the original article on Business Insider