The Pentagon is facing a storm of controversy and scrutiny following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier this month. As the Defense Department reviews dozens of social media posts from service members reacting to Kirk’s killing, the fallout has extended well beyond the armed forces and into the heart of America’s ongoing political and media battles.
On September 18, 2025, the Defense Department confirmed it was actively investigating social media posts by U.S. military personnel related to Kirk’s death, which Pentagon officials have unequivocally described as an assassination. According to CBS News, at least one Marine officer was pulled from recruiting duties while five Army officers and an Army Reserve officer were suspended pending the outcome of the reviews. An Army official told ABC News that “numerous people” have been suspended and “dozens” of posts are under review. The precise content of the posts has not been made public, but Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell declared on X (formerly Twitter), “Mocking or celebrating the assassination of a fellow American is unacceptable in the ranks.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this sentiment, stating on X that the department was monitoring the situation closely and would act immediately. “The conduct is unacceptable,” Hegseth wrote, signaling a zero-tolerance approach to what the Pentagon views as a breach of military discipline and decorum. Pentagon officials have been clear: personnel who celebrate or mock Kirk’s killing are “unfit to serve.”
The military’s response is grounded in longstanding regulations. Uniformed troops are subject to stricter rules on speech than civilian employees, with possible disciplinary action under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (violating regulations) or Article 134 (conduct discrediting the armed forces). However, as defense lawyers pointed out to CBS News, securing a court-martial conviction typically requires proof that the speech harmed good order, discipline, or the mission itself. In a 2008 case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that an Army soldier’s online white-supremacist posts did not violate Article 134 because there was no “direct and palpable effect” on the military mission or environment.
Inside the ranks, the crackdown has generated anxiety. Several service members and Defense Department employees told Politico they fear the enforcement could become politically motivated, especially for posts interpreted as disloyal to President Donald Trump. One defense official described the situation as “dangerous territory,” suggesting that broad enforcement could chill free speech and threaten to drag the military into partisan disputes. Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force officer and military law expert, warned that expansive enforcement of speech limits could have a “chilling effect” and risk entangling the armed forces in political battles.
The military’s leadership has responded with a unified front. The Air Force instructed commanders to use “all tools available” to investigate and penalize violations, with Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink urging strict adherence to rules on speech and political activity. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said units were handling cases individually and would take appropriate action. Navy Secretary John Phelan stated that any behavior bringing discredit to the department would draw immediate consequences. The message, across all branches, is clear: the military will not tolerate conduct that undermines its reputation or discipline.
This crackdown has not emerged in a vacuum. The Pentagon’s review was prompted in part by posts flagged by current and former troops, Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, and prominent social-media accounts such as Libs of TikTok and Mostly Peaceful Memes. Online activists have even promoted the hashtag #RevolutionariesintheRanks, encouraging people to crowdsource complaints and bring questionable posts to the Pentagon’s attention. Retired Army officer and attorney Sean Timmins told Politico that more firings are likely as the reviews continue, with outcomes varying case by case.
As the military grapples with the fallout, a separate controversy has erupted over media coverage of Kirk’s death and its aftermath. On September 18, the Pentagon forcefully denied an NBC News report that alleged military leaders were considering a new recruitment drive tied to Kirk’s legacy. The NBC article, authored by Courtney Kube, cited two unnamed officials who claimed Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Tata was leading discussions on a recruitment campaign framed as a national “call to service.” The report suggested potential slogans such as “Charlie has awakened a generation of warriors” and speculated that Turning Point USA chapters could be tapped as recruitment hubs. NBC also noted that some officials warned such efforts could be seen as exploiting Kirk’s assassination.
But the Pentagon was unequivocal in its rebuttal. Press secretary Kingsley Wilson told Fox News Digital the NBC report was “100% wrong,” accusing the network of publishing “false claims based on anonymous sources.” Wilson added, “This is not happening, yet Fake News NBC published this report as if it were true using anonymous sources with no knowledge of what the recruitment task force at DOW is working on.” The Pentagon released its original statement to NBC, in which chief spokesman Sean Parnell accused the media of “inventing lies” about recruitment efforts in an attempt to undermine the administration. “The media is so desperate to attack this administration’s success that they are now inventing lies,” Parnell said. He also asserted that under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s leadership, “men and women are coming out in droves to serve this great nation.”
NBC News did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. As of this writing, the story remains a flashpoint in the broader debate over media responsibility, anonymous sourcing, and the intersection of politics and military affairs.
The late Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated earlier in September 2025. His casket was flown aboard Air Force Two to Arizona, where President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and other senior officials were scheduled to attend his memorial service. The symbolism of the event, and the high-profile attendance, have only heightened the political stakes and public interest surrounding the case.
As the Pentagon’s reviews continue and the media battles rage on, the military finds itself navigating a minefield of discipline, free speech, and political perception. The coming weeks will test the armed forces’ ability to remain impartial and maintain order, even as the country watches—and debates—every move.
