UCMJ Article 88 Contempt Toward Officials vs Article 89 Disrespect Toward Superior Officer: Protected Targets and Who Can Be Charged
On this page: 6 sections
Article 88 limits who can commit the offense; Article 89 limits who can be its target. Only a commissioned officer can violate Article 88, and only by contemptuous words against a closed list of civilian officials and legislatures. Anyone subject to the UCMJ can violate Article 89, but only by disrespect toward that person’s own superior commissioned officer.
The statutory text
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Source: 10 U.S.C. § 888 (Article 88).
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward that person’s superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Source: 10 U.S.C. § 889(a) (Article 89).
Article 89 also has a subsection (b) for striking, drawing or lifting a weapon against, or offering violence against a superior commissioned officer in the execution of office. That offense sat in Article 90 before the 2016 amendments took effect on January 1, 2019.
Who can be charged
Article 88. The first element is that the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces (MCM, Part IV, ¶ 14.b(1)). Enlisted members are outside the article. For warrant officers, Title 10 provides that “the term ‘commissioned officer’ includes a commissioned warrant officer” (10 U.S.C. § 101(b)(2)), so the answer turns on whether the warrant officer holds a commission. The Rules for Courts-Martial draw the same line for punitive separations: dismissal applies to commissioned officers and commissioned warrant officers, and a dishonorable discharge to enlisted persons and warrant officers who are not commissioned (R.C.M. 1003(b)(8)(A)-(B)).
Article 89. Any person subject to the UCMJ can commit the offense, including an officer toward a more senior officer. The limit is the relationship: the target must be the accused’s superior commissioned officer, meaning “a commissioned officer superior in rank or command” (10 U.S.C. § 801(5)), and the accused must have known it. Without that knowledge there is no conviction under the article, though knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence (¶ 15.c(2)(a)). Disrespect by a warrant officer or enlisted member toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer who is in the execution of office, within that officer’s sight or hearing, is addressed by Article 91 (MCM, Part IV, ¶ 17.c(5)). A commissioned warrant officer is also a commissioned officer under Title 10 (10 U.S.C. § 101(b)(2)), so Article 89 can apply when that officer is the accused’s superior commissioned officer.
Who is protected
Article 88 protects the holders of the listed offices while they hold them: the official must occupy one of those offices at the time of the offense. The Manual adds three limits (¶ 14.c):
- “Neither ‘Congress’ nor ‘legislature’ includes its members individually.”
- “‘Governor’ does not include ‘lieutenant governor.'”
- For a Governor or state legislature, the accused must have been present in that State, Commonwealth, or possession (¶ 14.b(5)).
It does not matter whether the words target the official in an official or a private capacity.
Article 89 protects a relationship. The same officer may be protected when speaking to one accused and not another, depending on rank and command. The Manual also recognizes a defense: an officer whose conduct toward the accused “departs substantially from the required standards appropriate to that officer’s rank or position” loses the article’s protection (¶ 15.c(2)(d)).
What counts as the offense
| Article 88 | Article 89 | |
|---|---|---|
| Conduct | Contemptuous words | Disrespectful acts or language, "however expressed" |
| Communication or presence | The words must come to the knowledge of another person by an act of the accused | Need not occur in the superior's presence |
| Truth of the words | Immaterial | No defense |
| Purely private conversation | "Should not ordinarily be charged" | Ordinarily no liability under the article |
| Political criticism | Adverse criticism in political discussion, if not personally contemptuous, "may not be charged" | Not addressed separately |
Sources for the table: ¶ 14.b-c and ¶ 15.c(2)(b)-(c).
For Article 88, the words must come to the knowledge of someone other than the accused through the accused’s own act, and they must be contemptuous either in themselves or because of the circumstances in which they were used. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing such words, or using them in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense (¶ 14.c). How that aggravating factor applies to a particular online post is a question for the case.
For Article 89, disrespect is behavior that “detracts from the respect due the authority and person of a superior commissioned officer.” The Manual’s examples of disrespect by acts include neglecting the customary salute and “showing a marked disdain, indifference, insolence, impertinence, undue familiarity, or other rudeness in the presence of the superior officer” (¶ 15.c(2)(b)).
For example, an officer who posts, under the officer’s own name, that the Secretary of Defense is a coward faces the Article 88 elements; an enlisted member who posts the same words does not, because the first element fails; whether another article reaches such a post is a separate question. A lieutenant who, in front of the platoon, mocks the company commander’s order and turns away while the commander is speaking is in a different position: that is conduct toward a superior commissioned officer, and it falls under Article 89.
Whether particular words were contemptuous or disrespectful under the circumstances, and whether a conversation was purely private, depend on the full circumstances proved at trial.
Maximum punishments
| Offense | Maximum (MCM, Part IV, ¶ 14.d and ¶ 15.d) |
|---|---|
| Contempt toward officials (Article 88) | Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 1 year |
| Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer in command | Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 1 year |
| Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer superior in rank | Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 6 months |
| Striking, lifting a weapon against, or offering violence to a superior commissioned officer in the execution of office, in time of war | Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct |
| The same, at any other time | Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 10 years |
Dismissal may be adjudged only by a general court-martial (R.C.M. 1003(b)(8)(A)). Outside capital cases, where every finding of guilty is for an offense committed after December 27, 2023, the military judge determines the sentence in a general or special court-martial (10 U.S.C. § 853(b)(1)).
Sources
- 10 U.S.C. § 888, contempt toward officials (Article 88)
- 10 U.S.C. § 889, disrespect toward superior commissioned officer; assault of superior commissioned officer (Article 89)
- 10 U.S.C. § 801, definitions (Article 1)
- 10 U.S.C. § 101, definitions
- 10 U.S.C. § 853, findings and sentencing (Article 53)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), Part IV, ¶ 14 and ¶ 15; R.C.M. 1003(b)(8).
Legal information about how Articles 88 and 89 are written and explained, not an assessment of any statement or post. This page reflects the UCMJ as amended through Public Law 119-60 (December 18, 2025) and the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 edition) as amended by Executive Order 14130.