Col Meyers - You're Fired!
A Legal and Ethical Analysis of Col. Susannah Meyers’ Removal Under UCMJ and Military Command Standards
Introduction
In April 2025, Colonel Susannah Meyers, commander of the United States Space Force’s Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, was removed from her post following a controversial internal email she sent to base personnel. The communication, sent shortly after a visit from Vice President JD Vance, stated that the Vice President’s critical remarks about Denmark’s governance of Greenland did not reflect the views of Pituffik Space Base.
Trump Coin From Challenge Coin Nation
About Challenge Coin Nation
We at Challenge Coin Nation are a veteran founded company and are honored to be able to continue serving our brothers and sisters in arms all over the world. We sell many different military themed items, but challenge coins are our specialty.
Although there have been no public criminal charges against Col. Meyers, her dismissal raises critical questions about command responsibility, military law, political neutrality, and good order and discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and related Department of Defense (DoD) regulations. This article analyzes the legal framework and command principles at play and explains how her actions may have violated military standards, even if they did not amount to criminal conduct.
I. The Legal and Ethical Framework of Command
A. The Role of Command in the U.S. Military
Commanders in the U.S. military hold positions of unique trust. According to Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, commanders are responsible for:
- Maintaining discipline
- Ensuring mission accomplishment
- Upholding the Constitution and laws of the United States
- Setting the moral and ethical tone for their command
Command authority is not only about leading troops in battle but also about embodying the nonpartisan, apolitical character of the U.S. armed forces.
B. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
The UCMJ, enacted under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, governs the behavior of all U.S. military personnel. While Col. Meyers has not been charged with a crime, several articles of the UCMJ may be relevant in assessing whether her conduct constituted a breach of military law or command ethics:
- Article 88 – Contempt Toward Officials
- Article 92 – Failure to Obey Order or Regulation
- Article 133 – Conduct Unbecoming an Officer
- Article 134 – General Article (Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline)
Each of these articles can be applied administratively in cases where conduct does not rise to criminal prosecution but is sufficient to relieve a commander of duty.
II. The Incident: Context and Email Contents
A. Vice President Vance’s Remarks
During his visit to Pituffik Space Base in March 2025, Vice President JD Vance criticized Denmark’s management of Greenland and reiterated President Trump’s long-standing interest in bringing Greenland under U.S. control. The comments were politically charged and controversial, particularly given Denmark's role as a NATO ally.
B. Col. Meyers’ Response
Three days later, Col. Meyers sent an email to her base personnel stating:
“I do not presume to understand current politics, but what I do know is the concerns of the U.S. administration discussed by Vice President Vance on Friday are not reflective of Pituffik Space Base.”
This email was viewed by higher authorities as distancing herself and the base from the sitting administration’s foreign policy positions—an action deemed incompatible with military expectations of political neutrality.
III. Legal Analysis: Potential UCMJ Violations
A. Article 88: Contempt Toward Officials
Text: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress... shall be punished."
Analysis: While Meyers' words were not overtly contemptuous, suggesting that the Vice President’s statements were not reflective of the base could be construed as publicly contradicting or undermining a senior elected official. In the military, even a mild rebuke of civilian leadership—especially in an official communication—may be interpreted as a breach of Article 88.
However, successful prosecution would likely require a more direct and explicitly contemptuous tone. Thus, while Article 88 is unlikely to be invoked criminally, its principle supports administrative relief.
B. Article 92: Failure to Obey a Lawful Order or Regulation
Text: “Any person... who violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation... shall be punished.”
Relevant Regulations:
- DoD Directive 1344.10: Prohibits active-duty personnel from engaging in partisan political activities.
- Joint Ethics Regulation (DoD 5500.07-R): Requires that official communications avoid political bias or the appearance thereof.
Analysis: By appearing to rebuke the Vice President’s policy stance in an official capacity, Col. Meyers may have violated the spirit—if not the exact letter—of these regulations. The Pentagon’s reaction, emphasizing the need for nonpartisan conduct, indicates her message crossed a line in expressing or implying a political opinion on behalf of a military institution.
C. Article 133: Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman
Text: “Any commissioned officer... who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished.”
Analysis: This article addresses a broad range of unethical or unprofessional conduct. In Col. Meyers' case, suggesting that the base dissents from the Vice President's remarks—regardless of intent—may have been viewed as unbecoming, especially if interpreted as undermining the civilian chain of command. Article 133 has often been applied in administrative actions where ethical leadership is in question, even without criminal wrongdoing.
D. Article 134: Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline
Text: “All disorders and neglects... to the prejudice of good order and discipline... shall be punished.”
Analysis: The Pentagon explicitly stated that “actions to undermine the chain of command or to subvert President Trump’s agenda will not be tolerated.” Col. Meyers' email, which questioned the alignment of Pituffik Space Base with that agenda, could be seen as prejudicial to good order and discipline, especially in a sensitive diplomatic context.
IV. The Principle of Political Neutrality
A. Historical Precedent
U.S. military tradition has always emphasized the apolitical nature of the armed forces. The principle was reinforced by General George Marshall, who famously refused to vote while serving, to maintain absolute neutrality.
Recent years have tested this principle. Nevertheless, active-duty officers are consistently reminded of their duty to remain politically neutral, particularly in official communications.
B. Chain of Command and Civilian Oversight
The U.S. military operates under civilian control, with the President at its head as Commander-in-Chief. Openly contradicting the expressed stance of civilian leaders—even implicitly—challenges that structure and introduces ambiguity about military obedience to elected authority.
Col. Meyers' email may have been well-intentioned, aiming to protect her international team from diplomatic discomfort. But her action created the appearance of dissent from the Commander-in-Chief and his Vice President, which military law and custom strive to avoid.
V. The Threshold for “Loss of Confidence”
“Loss of confidence” is not a legal term but an administrative standard allowing senior leaders to relieve commanders when trust in their judgment or leadership has been irreparably damaged. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Col. Meyers’ case, the following likely contributed:
- The perception of undermining U.S. foreign policy.
- The political sensitivity of her remarks during an ongoing geopolitical narrative.
- The potential for diplomatic fallout with NATO allies like Denmark.
VI. Ethical Leadership: A Balancing Act
Military leaders often walk a fine line between moral courage and insubordination. Col. Meyers may have believed it was her duty to reassure non-American personnel. However, ethical leadership in the military context often requires restraint, deference to civilian control, and an understanding that official communications—even with good intentions—carry weight far beyond their immediate audience.
Conclusion
While Col. Susannah Meyers has not been charged with a crime, her removal reflects the complex intersection of military law, ethical leadership, and political neutrality. Her actions likely violated key standards under the UCMJ and DoD directives—not necessarily by malice, but by failing to uphold the apolitical expectations of her position.
Commanders are not only warfighters but stewards of trust, tasked with preserving the integrity of the military institution. In a time of political polarization and global uncertainty, maintaining that trust is more essential than ever. Col. Meyers' story serves as a cautionary tale of how even subtle missteps can result in significant consequences when viewed through the lens of command responsibility and the legal obligations of military leadership.
Challenge Coin Nation
We at Challenge Coin Nation are a veteran founded company and are honored to be able to continue serving our brothers and sisters in arms all over the world. We sell many different military themed items, but challenge coins are our specialty. Check out some of our coins below:
Challenge Coin Nation Challenge Coins
Challenge Coin Nation Stock Challenge Coins
Challenge Coin Nation Custom Coins