An active-duty Air Force major was arrested in June while participating in uniform in a protest near the U.S. Capitol, reigniting debate about the proper role of military members in political activity. For most citizens, such an incident might have remained a localized legal matter. Instead, national news coverage and social media quickly amplified it into a broader debate about the political neutrality and unique responsibilities that accompany military service. This conversation is not just about the U.S. military’s generals and admirals. Today, despite their distance from policymaking, lower-ranking officers’ actions can quickly take on broader civil-military significance and place them at the center of national debate.
Although civil-military dilemmas are not new, technological change and rising political polarization make it more likely that military personnel far removed from national policymaking will find themselves at the center of public controversy. As digital communication has lowered barriers to public audiences, individual officers’ actions can now generate national attention regardless of rank or position. Civil-military relations scholarship has traditionally focused on senior leaders as they interact with civilian authorities, provide military advice, and participate in the national security decision-making process. Here, we examine non-policy officers, broadly defined as O-6 and below (a colonel and below in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Space Force; and a captain and below in the Navy and Coast Guard), whose primary duties focus on executing rather than formulating policy. Positioned between policy-facing officers and the enlisted personnel they lead, non-policy officers face a distinct set of civil-military challenges. As stewards of the profession’s expertise and its future senior leaders, their experiences warrant particular attention.
At first glance, one might assume that the political responsibilities of non-policy officers begin and end with compliance with established regulations. Yet in an increasingly visible and politically polarized information environment, non-policy officers’ challenges extend beyond regulatory compliance to exercising judgment and balancing action and restraint in service of the profession’s responsibilities. Through several illustrative cases, we examine three pathways through which non-policy officers become involved in civil-military controversy: clear boundary violations, incidental political exposure, and ethical dilemmas involving competing obligations. Viewed through the lens of professional responsibility, these cases show why sound civil-military judgment requires more than regulatory compliance and underscore the importance of preparing non-policy officers to recognize and navigate such dilemmas before they encounter them in practice.
Existing Guidance on Political Activity
Law, regulation, and customs reinforce U.S. military officers’ professional obligations. While the Constitution and the officer’s oath provide the foundation for the military’s apolitical tradition, Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 and relevant provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) establish the principal boundaries governing political conduct in the armed forces. DoD Directive 1344.10 recognizes that military personnel retain many of the rights and obligations of citizenship while restricting activities that could create the appearance of official military endorsement of partisan candidates, causes, or movements. The UCMJ reinforces these expectations through provisions governing conduct, discipline, and the unique responsibilities of commissioned officers, highlighted by Article 88’s restrictions on contemptuous words directed toward senior political officials.
Notably, the current version of DoD Directive 1344.10 was issued in 2008, before technological and social media developments fundamentally reshaped the information environment, enabling individuals to communicate directly with mass audiences and rapidly influence public discourse. Although the Department has issued additional guidance on social media and digital communication, technological change has fundamentally altered how military officers interact with public audiences, increasing the visibility of individual actions and opportunities for direct participation in public discourse. In doing so, this technological shift has also blurred the traditional distinction between conduct in and out of uniform. These developments have coincided with growing political polarization in the United States and increasing concern regarding partisanship within the military profession.
Military Professionalism and the Non-Policy Officer
While regulations define what non-policy officers may do, military professionalism guides their judgment by explaining why the profession of arms occupies a distinctive place within American society. Like physicians, attorneys, and other established professions, the U.S. military is entrusted with a public purpose that extends beyond individual interests, embodying what political scientist Samuel Huntington identified in The Soldier and the State as the essential attributes of a profession: expertise, responsibility, and corporateness. Yet the military profession differs from most others. Officers exercise authority delegated by the state, command organizations responsible for managing organized violence, and swear an oath not to a ruler, party, or ideology, but to the Constitution.
Huntington’s conception matters because people often reduce professionalism to expertise and competence. Yet expertise alone does not define a profession. A skilled pilot, engineer, logistician, or other specialist may be highly competent, but professions are distinguished by the shared responsibilities, norms, and institutions that connect specialized knowledge to broader obligations owed to society.
For senior military leaders, the responsibilities of professionalism and civil-military relations are often more explicit because their statutory duties regularly place them at the intersection of military expertise, civilian authority, and constitutional responsibility. Professional military education, senior leader development, and years of experience in this environment expose them to the broader responsibilities of military professionalism. Most officers, however, spend their careers far removed from this policy-facing environment. As the officer corps’ silent majority, non-policy officers focus on leading organizations and implementing policy rather than interacting with civilian leaders. Yet contemporary non-policy officers increasingly encounter questions of professional responsibility before acquiring the experience, education, and context that help senior leaders navigate similar issues. Compounding this challenge, today’s information environment allows national attention to focus on individual officers’ localized actions.
The following cases illustrate three pathways through which non-policy officers have become participants in highly visible twenty-first century public discourse. Collectively, they highlight the complex civil-military challenges of an increasingly visible and politically polarized environment.
The Case Studies
Clear Boundary Violations occur when non-policy officers engage in political activity governed by well-established regulatory restrictions. Although circumstances may vary, the standards governing such conduct leave little ambiguity when individual political expression conflicts with professional neutrality.
Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller provides an illustrative example. Following the 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Scheller posted a widely viewed Facebook video criticizing senior military leaders for what he viewed as a failure of accountability. He later expanded those comments into a sustained public campaign that drew national attention and turned demands for senior-leader accountability into a broader civil-military controversy. Scheller was relieved of command, faced court-martial proceedings, and ultimately left active service, ending his 17-year military career.
Other non-policy officers have crossed similar professional boundaries through ideological advocacy, political activism, or public opposition to government policy. Shortly after graduating from West Point in 2016, 2nd Lt. Spenser Rapone gained notoriety when photographs surfaced showing political messages concealed beneath his uniform during graduation activities. Rapone later amplified the controversy through social media, openly promoting communist views while identifying himself as an Army officer. Capt. Emily Rainey also drew scrutiny for opposing COVID-19 restrictions and for organizing transportation to Washington, D.C., for events surrounding January 6, 2021. Although Rainey maintained she was acting as a private citizen and had already submitted her resignation, public attention focused heavily on her status as a serving officer. Finally, Lt. Col. Paul Hague’s 2021 resignation over a Department of Defense vaccine mandate presents another example after his politically charged resignation letter appeared on his wife’s social media account.
From the June arrest of the Air Force major to the officers above, social media has expanded opportunities for political engagement while amplifying the public visibility of officers’ actions. Although they differed in rank, motivation, and circumstance, each voluntarily engaged in conduct that crossed or tested established regulations. Ultimately, public political advocacy is not the military’s institutional responsibility. These actions invite reflection on how non-policy officers interpret their oath, exercise restraint, and balance the claims of citizenship and conscience against the responsibilities of military professionalism.
Incidental Political Exposure occurs when non-policy officers become involved in civil-military controversy through the performance of professional duties. Unlike officers who voluntarily enter political activity, these officers are drawn into public debate when their actions acquire political significance beyond their original purpose.
Navy Capt. Brett Crozier provides perhaps the clearest example of incidental political exposure. As commanding officer of USS Theodore Roosevelt, Crozier sent a memorandum through military channels on March 30, 2020, requesting more decisive action and resources to address a growing COVID-19 outbreak aboard his ship. His objective was operational, not political: protecting his sailors’ health and readiness. After the memo was leaked, however, what began as a command issue quickly became a national controversy tied to debates over the government’s pandemic response, and Crozier was subsequently relieved of command.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman demonstrates a different form of incidental political exposure. In 2019, as a National Security Council staff officer, Vindman became a central figure in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump after reporting concerns and later testifying before Congress regarding what he described as outside influencers promoting a “false narrative” concerning Ukraine. Vindman maintained that he acted “in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to support and defend the Constitution.” Regardless of how one interprets the underlying events, Vindman became a prominent public figure not because he sought political controversy, but because actions taken in the course of his official duties became politically consequential.
In such cases, officers do not seek controversy; rather, controversy finds them. In the information age, professional decisions can rapidly acquire political significance far beyond their original purpose, transforming non-policy officers into symbols within deeply polarized national debates.
Competing obligations offer a third pathway into civil-military controversy for non-policy officers and are often the hardest to evaluate. Unlike officers who cross established professional boundaries or whose actions acquire political significance through broader public controversy, these officers face situations in which important professional obligations come into tension, requiring them to choose among competing values. Obligations of truth, loyalty, citizenship, and faith do not always point in the same direction, and reasonable disagreement about the proper course of action is inevitable.
TRUTH — In 2012, following a year-long deployment throughout Afghanistan, Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis concluded that public statements regarding progress in the war diverged sharply from conditions he had observed firsthand. Believing candor a professional duty, he first raised his concerns with the Army Inspector General before communicating them to congressional overseers and, ultimately, a broader public audience. Yet efforts to uphold truth and candor can place competing obligations in tension, as truth-telling may be perceived as disloyalty and criticism as a threat to institutional trust. Officers who assume the role of whistleblowers may find themselves marginalized within their institutions or treated as persona non grata.
LOYALTY — In August, Marine Col. Zachary Schmidt publicly advocated for Afghan partners who supported U.S. forces, arguing that the United States should honor commitments to those who accepted significant personal risk during the war. Speaking in a personal capacity and out of uniform, Schmidt emphasized that he was not representing the Marine Corps, framing his advocacy as an expression of loyalty to wartime partners rather than a challenge to military or civilian leaders. Yet Schmidt’s actions illustrate how competing claims of loyalty can create difficult professional dilemmas, as publicly acting on obligations to former allies may conflict with the profession’s expectation of political neutrality. Retired military commentators face similar tensions.
CITIZENSHIP — In 2020, Army Reserve Capt. Alan Kennedy participated in Black Lives Matter protests while off duty and out of uniform before later writing publicly about his experiences. During a period of intense national debate, many service members acted on a variety of politically charged social issues. Kennedy viewed these actions as an exercise of constitutional rights and civic participation. His chain of command, however, viewed the matter through the lens of military professionalism and public perception, resulting in administrative action (later overturned). While officers retain constitutional rights, Parker v. Levy (1974) recognized that the military is a “specialized society separate from civilian society” in which the demands of discipline and duty condition those rights. As a result, participation in public demonstrations, however principled, can place obligations of citizenship in tension with responsibilities to the profession. This tension is especially acute for non-policy officers in the Guard and Reserve, whose dual status as citizens and service members makes such questions a routine feature of military service.
FAITH — In 2021, Air Force Lt. Col. Jonathan Dunn refused to comply with the military COVID-19 vaccine requirement. Dunn argued that complying would violate his religious beliefs, framing his opposition as a religious obligation rather than partisan resistance. Dunn was not alone. In recent years, military officers have sought accommodations for Sikh articles of faith, Muslim religious dress, and other faith-based practices. For non-policy officers, tensions between faith and duty can be especially consequential because leaders are responsible not only for their own conduct, but also for setting the professional example for those they lead.
Serving the Republic: The Limits of Military Responsibility
This review of pathways through which non-policy officers can become involved in civil-military controversy is not intended to condemn or endorse the decisions examined here. Moreover, the 11 officers reviewed represent only a tiny fraction of the roughly 370,000 active, reserve, and National Guard officers, and this analysis omits the countless instances in which others avoided civil-military controversy. Yet rarity does not diminish the value of studying such cases. Professions routinely examine uncommon events, from aviation mishaps to ethical failures, because they reveal important lessons about judgment, emerging trends, and process deficiencies that routine experience often obscures.
Several of the officers examined concluded that their actions were worth the personal and professional costs they incurred. Less clear, however, is the extent to which they considered another obligation: stewardship of the military profession itself. Stewardship requires officers to consider not only their immediate duties and convictions, but also the long-term health of the profession they represent. In some cases, this may require recognizing that the military is not meant to solve every political or societal problem.
Did these 11 officers adequately weigh the potential effects of their actions on the profession’s legitimacy, political neutrality, and relationship with the society it serves? The evidence is mixed. Yet as civil-military scholars and retired senior leaders have repeatedly warned of growing partisanship within the military and its consequences for the profession, this question deserves greater attention. Preserving an apolitical military is essential and, somewhat paradoxically, may require more deliberate discussion of civil-military dilemmas within professional military education, mentorship, and leader development.
Dilemmas are hardly unique to military service. Physicians swear to do no harm, yet must often balance competing obligations involving patient autonomy, quality of life, and professional medical judgment. Lawyers encounter similar tensions when duties of loyalty, confidentiality, and justice point in different directions. These professions therefore embed ethical reasoning, professional judgment, and case-based learning throughout education, training, and certification. Non-policy officers would benefit from a similar emphasis in their professional formation. In today’s information environment, as technological change continues to amplify the visibility, consequences, and reach of individual actions, professional decisions can rapidly acquire national political significance, making sound judgment more important, not less.
Recommendations
First, non-policy officers should be exposed early and often to the civil-military dimensions of military professionalism. Although regulatory compliance is essential, it cannot prepare officers for the difficult individual judgments required when obligations pull in different directions, particularly in an era of instant and pervasive political visibility.
Second, the Pentagon should consolidate and modernize guidance governing political activity, public communication, and social media. DoD Directive 1344.10 predates today’s information environment and, although later guidance has supplemented it, the framework remains fragmented and unwieldy to navigate.
Conclusions
Civil-military relations scholarship has focused disproportionately on flag officers. Yet technological change and political polarization increasingly place non-policy officers at the center of civil-military controversy, warranting greater attention to how they are educated and prepared for the responsibilities of military professionalism.
By taking the oath of office, military officers commit themselves to causes greater than themselves. That commitment can also draw them into civil-military controversy, often in situations involving competing obligations rather than clear violations of duty. The cases examined here suggest that preparing officers for such challenges requires more than knowledge of regulations. It requires the judgment to recognize competing obligations, anticipate second-order effects, and discern when to speak, act, or exercise restraint. In rare circumstances, officers may conclude that the demands of oath, profession, and conscience are irreconcilable. When that occurs, professional responsibility may require resignation through established institutional channels rather than public advocacy or disobedience.
Non-policy officers swear to support and defend the Constitution, not to serve as its political custodians. They are stewards of a profession whose legitimacy rests on its unique military expertise, political neutrality, and responsibility to civilian authority. Indeed, the profession of arms rightly cultivates initiative, responsibility, and action. Yet in civil-military affairs, effective service to the republic sometimes requires different virtues: judgement and restraint.
