An Air Force officer who was arrested after calling for President Donald Trump’s impeachment has been recommended to stand trial by general court-martial—the military’s most serious level of trial—on most of the charges against him, according to his attorney.
Maj. Jason Watson was arrested in uniform on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in July as he called for Trump to be impeached, arguing that the president had violated the Constitution and that Trump and Vice President JD Vance should be removed from office.
Watson has said he acted not out of partisanship but to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution. He has been held in pretrial confinement since Aug.18 on a military hold.
The government charged him under three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The most unusual are three charges under Article 88, which bars officers from using “contemptuous” words against the president and other senior officials.
Watson faces those over remarks he made during his protest and in later interviews. He is also charged under Article 92 with failing to obey orders and under Article 133 with conduct unbecoming an officer.
What the Hearing Officer Recommended
The recommendations followed Watson’s Article 32 preliminary hearing on Sept. 18 at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, D.C., an early step at which a neutral officer reviews the charges and advises how a case should proceed.
Maj. Joshua Wendell, the investigating officer, recommended that the remaining charges move forward to a general court-martial, the equivalent of a civilian felony trial, according to Watson’s attorney, Christopher Mutimer, as reported by the New York Times.
Military.com reached out to Mutimer for comment.
Wendell also recommended dismissing two charges accusing Watson of prohibited partisan political activity, finding no probable cause to support them. He also supported dismissal of a third charge related to Watson’s authorized leave.
Wendell’s report was labeled “controlled unclassified information,” a Defense Department designation that limits how it can be shared.
The Air Force did not immediately respond to Military.com’s request for comment on the report.
It’s a Recommendation, Not a Decision
Wendell’s report does not by itself send Watson to trial.
The case now goes to the convening authority—typically a commander with the power to refer charges and to assemble a court-martial— who will decide whether and how to proceed.
Those recommendations are not binding, though it is rare in the military justice system for a convening authority to depart from them.
That leaves Watson’s fate with a single commander who could accept the recommendation, send fewer charges forward, choose a lower level of court-martial, or decline to refer the case at all.
Watson’s Attorneys vs. the Government
At the hearing, Watson’s lawyers reportedly argued that his statements addressed matters of public concern rather than partisan politics, and that any charges allowed to proceed should be resolved at a special court-martial—a less severe forum, rather than a general one.
The government argued that Watson was not being singled out and that the charges did not stem from political pressure.
Watson’s defense has compared his case to that of Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, who was court-martialed after posting videos criticizing military leaders over the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Scheller ultimately pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to lesser charges, and the defense has noted that Watson faces more charges than Scheller did.
Article 88 prosecutions are unusual. The provision dates to the earliest days of the U.S. military and has rarely been used in modern times.
This makes the charges against Watson a rare test of the line between an officer’s free-speech rights and the military’s rules on contemptuous speech toward civilian leaders.
Watson remains in pretrial confinement. No trial date has been set.
