The Weaponization of Military Justice

There is a growing trend in political media that poses a direct threat to the apolitical character of military service. This trend does not center on whistleblowing, legitimate criticism, or uncovering misconduct. It involves something far more corrosive — calculated entrapment. These so-called media investigations rely on covert recordings, deceptive pretexts, and selective editing to create outrage, not truth. Conversations that take place off duty, in personal settings, are stripped of context and repackaged as evidence of disloyalty or subversion. Once released, these videos generate a wave of public pressure, often targeting institutions like the military to take punitive action. When that pressure is allowed to influence command decisions, the result is not accountability. It is manipulation.

These tactics are not used by independent journalists acting in the public interest. They are driven by partisan actors with a documented history of distorting facts to fit a political narrative. Their goal is not clarity or reform. It is to provoke, to punish, and to purge. The result is an information weapon disguised as journalism. And the people caught in their crosshairs are rarely powerful figures. Increasingly, the targets are rank-and-file servicemembers, civil servants, and career professionals — people with no public platform, no policymaking authority, and no opportunity to defend themselves before the damage is done.

Punishing Service to Feed a Narrative

Presidents have the right to choose their own senior officials and appointees. These roles are inherently political, and it is expected that they reflect the priorities of an administration. But this latest wave of media-driven targeting is not focused on Cabinet members or general officers. It is focused on those who serve quietly and competently across multiple administrations. The individuals being attacked are mid-level officers and career federal employees. They are not shaping national security strategy or controlling the levers of government. They are simply doing their jobs.

What makes these attacks so dangerous is that they seek to impose ideological conformity not through policy or democratic process, but through public shaming and institutional fear. The message is clear: If you hold the wrong personal belief, even privately, you are a threat. These are not cases of misconduct. They are cases of disagreement. And when commanders respond to this external pressure without independent verification or due process, they allow the military’s own disciplinary systems to be hijacked by outside partisans. That erodes morale, undermines trust in leadership, and places the institution at risk.

Private Belief Is Not Betrayal

Military service requires sacrifice. We accept limits on our public speech. We agree to remain politically neutral in our official capacities. We follow lawful orders, regardless of who holds office. These responsibilities are part of the trust between the military and the country it serves. But those responsibilities do not eliminate the right to think freely, to vote, or to express personal beliefs in private life. These freedoms are not only compatible with military service. They are the very rights we swear to defend.

It is precisely this contradiction that makes these attacks so insidious. They punish servicemembers for exercising the freedoms they protect. They turn lawful, private speech into scandal, and they weaponize surveillance and editing to present personal views as professional failings. When leadership allows this tactic to succeed, it sends a chilling message that truth is no longer the standard. Instead, perception becomes punishment and virality becomes guilt. That is not justice. That is coercion. And it has no place in a professional military.

Service Requires Institutional Integrity

I continue to serve because I believe in the profession. I believe in the power of principled service to transcend politics, to unify across difference, and to ground our institutions in discipline and purpose. The military draws its strength from diversity of background, thought, and experience. It functions because we are able to look past political belief and focus on shared mission. That is a strength — not a weakness. But it is a strength that must be actively protected.

Military justice must not be dictated by online outrage or political vendettas. Even administrative actions must be grounded in evidence that is complete, reliable, and legally sound. That standard exists not just to protect individuals, but to preserve the credibility of the entire system. If the military permits partisan provocateurs to define guilt and influence decisions, it will degrade the very institution it claims to uphold. And once that credibility is lost, it will not be easily restored.

Commanders Must Hold the Line

This kind of erosion does not occur all at once. It begins subtly, through informal suggestions and implied expectations. A video surfaces. A message is shared. A commander is told to take a closer look. No one issues a direct order, but everyone understands the pressure to respond. In moments like this, leadership is not tested in theory, but in action. The real question is whether military leaders will uphold the standards they swore to enforce or allow outside influence to compromise those principles. Servicemembers deserve to be evaluated based on their conduct, not on manipulated representations crafted to fit a political agenda. They deserve protection from abuse and fairness in the application of policy.

When command fails to protect its people from this kind of exploitation, the consequences extend far beyond the individual. The damage affects unit trust, institutional integrity, and the confidence that service is still grounded in principle. That is not just a leadership challenge. It is a moral one. And if the profession of arms is to retain its legitimacy, military leaders must be willing to defend their people not only from unlawful orders but also from dishonest tactics designed to turn them into collateral for someone else’s outrage.

Author’s Note: I serve as Defense Counsel in the Trial Defense Service for the DC Army National Guard and currently represent the servicemember at the center of the events described in this article. The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own and should not be interpreted as the official position of the U.S. Army, the DC National Guard, or the Department of Defense. You can view the video referenced in this article here:

https://youtu.be/fgqrmg9bLng