Permitted and Prohibited Political Behavior in the Naval Service

The Sea Services are falling short in educating their members on civil-military norms. Amid the intense political debates and heated rhetoric that have defined the U.S. political landscape in recent years, partisan political expressions within the ranks can be inimical to unit cohesion and good order and discipline. Further, there is mounting evidence that public displays of partisanship by active-duty service members are contributing to an erosion of U.S. public confidence in the military. Despite intensified political polarization—exacerbated by social media in an environment of pervasive disinformation—formal training on civil-military relations is lacking. The naval services need to do more to inform all ranks of acceptable political expression and the dangers of inappropriate partisan displays.

As officers stationed at the U.S. Naval Academy engaging with a small cross-section of the military, one bookended by senior officers on the faculty with significant operational experience and midshipmen about to begin their journeys in the Navy and Marine Corps, we have found the challenges of civil-military relations are compelling to—yet poorly understood by—both students and faculty. This observation is not new. Scholars Peter Feaver and Richard Kohn noted a few years ago that “most flag and general military officers participate in civil-military relations daily whether or not they realize it. . . . Yet . . . they have thought little over time about how [civilian control] works or the difficulties involved, much less the larger framework of civil-military relations.”¹

This problem must be addressed, as the discipline of civil-military relations is a factor in many critical debates in our society, such as on civilian control of the military; the use of force; recruiting and who serves in the all-volunteer and all-recruited armed forces; the challenges of social media; and political behavior in an era of increased societal polarization. Most important, given the highly partisan political discourse that shows no sign of ebbing, the entire active-duty Navy and Marine Corps—from E-1 through O-10—must understand the rules and norms of political behavior. But that is not enough. Unit commanders and deckplate leaders must have the understanding to effectively address the nuances of political behavior that make this such a significant challenge.

Norms and Rules

A combination of formal regulations and informal norms govern military members’ political behavior. The primary regulation is Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 1344.10: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces. This 15-page document provides a list of permitted and prohibited activities but, unfortunately, does not provide much discussion or background to put the list into context. And as the directive was last updated in 2008, it is woefully out of date for the 2024 information environment. For example, it does not provide any overarching or specific guidance on how service members should behave with respect to political discourse on social media. In the past few years, each military service has independently attempted to address this gap, and social media guidance for the naval services is briefly summarized in the Navy Social Media Handbook for Leaders 2023 and the U.S. Marine Corps 2021 Social Media Handbook.² Figure 1 summarizes authorized and forbidden political behaviors in accordance with Directive 1344.10, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and Navy and Marine Corps social media handbooks.

Figure 1: Political Activity in the Military

In contrast to formal regulations, norms are “socially shared rules, usually unwritten, that are created, communicated, and enforced outside officially sanctioned channels.”³ All professions have such socially enforced norms. For example, Navy wardrooms on board ships have a long history of enforcing norms that govern etiquette. A Proceedings article from more than 60 years ago called out “the old taboo against discussion of sex, religion, and politics in the wardroom.”⁴

While even defining terms can be contentious in politically polarized world, the two key terms in any discussion about rules and norms of political behavior are “political” and “partisan.” Many today use these terms interchangeably, but they are distinct.

“Political” is an overarching term that describes interactions between various forces in a society with a responsibility for and stake in making decisions about rules and resources. When the Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Marine Corps testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee to discuss the Department of the Navy’s budget request and force posture, that is a political act in the broad sense of the word. But when these officials engage in this act, they take great care to make sure the department does not side with one political party against the other.

“Partisan” refers to the specific alignment with a political party or “involving loyal support of a person, principle, or political party.”⁵ For example, if an active-duty military member were to speak before a political party’s national convention, that act would be both “political” and “partisan,” as well as a severe violation of both norms and regulations.

All Americans, even those on active duty, retain political rights that may be considered both privately political and partisan. In fact, DoD senior leaders encourage military members to exercise their rights as citizens, such as voting in elections. Clearly, going into a voting booth and voting for a particular candidate is both a political and a partisan act. However, to ensure a private political act does not cross into broader public “partisan territory” in which an endorsement of a political party or partisan cause by the military as an institution could be implied, military political participation must have guardrails.

A private partisan act such as voting is different from taking actions that imply the entire military, or a specific service, aligns with a political party. Further, the proliferation of social media and resultant amplification of the voice and visibility of all service members regardless of rank makes the establishment and understanding of these guardrails even more critical. Figure 1 identifies permitted and prohibited political and partisan activity for those on active duty.

These limits on behavior are not unique to the political realm, as every military member who takes the oath accepts limits on their behavior in many areas that differ from their civilian counterparts. Directive 1344.10 even begins with the words, “It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces to carry out the obligations of citizenship,” as long as they remain “in keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity and . . . avoid inferences that their political activities imply or appear to imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement” by the military as a whole.⁶

Leading at the Unit Level in Polarized Times

The first six months of the 2024 election year saw several notable documents related to U.S. civil-military relations that flew below the radar of public discourse. First, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks released a short memorandum in February to “remind all Department of Defense (DoD) personnel about the rules pertaining to participation in political activities.”⁷ The one-paragraph memorandum included an attached “Political Activity Quick Guide” with a stoplight-type chart with 11 political activities, showing which are forbidden or permitted for various DoD civilian and military employees. Of note, while the memo was addressed to senior Pentagon leaders, it lacked explicit guidance on educating or training the force on these matters.  However, its tone clearly implied action would follow at the service level.

Three months later, in late May, the DoD Inspector General (IG) released a report that evaluated DoD and each military service with respect to how it provides training and guidance on political conduct, with a specific focus on the 2024 presidential election. The IG’s report criticized Pentagon leaders for a lack of action in addressing political partisanship in the military. In the executive summary, the IG stated “DoD did not consistently issue guidance or provide training to all service members related to permissible and prohibited partisan and nonpartisan political activities. As a result, the DoD does not have assurance that all service members understand their responsibilities related to partisan and nonpartisan political activities and the associated consequences for failure to adhere to the guidance.”⁸

The IG ended its report with two recommendations. First, “that the Secretaries of the Military Departments . . . promptly issue a memorandum that reminds service members” of their obligations with regards to partisan political behavior.⁹ Second, that DoD update the regulations that govern political behavior in the military “to provide guidance and training on partisan and nonpartisan political activities to all service members at least each presidential election year.”¹⁰

In a naval message in July 2024, the Secretary of the Navy responded to the IG’s recommendations and provided guidance on political activities to all Department of the Navy personnel. This message not only outlined in detail the contents of DoD Directive 1344.10 and the permitted and forbidden activities, but it also directed all commanding officers and supervisors to “provide training to their personnel . . . on the permissible and impermissible activities” listed in the message no later than 15 September 2024.¹¹ While this is a step forward and a clear response to the DoD IG report, it arguably falls short in two key areas.

First and foremost, the guidance from the Secretary of the Navy and the associated PowerPoint online course do not have the sufficient support materials or context to assist commanding officers and senior enlisted leaders with the discussion and questions likely to arise at the unit level. Stoplight charts with only red and green colors and laundry lists or a PowerPoint slide of permitted and forbidden activities only go so far.  Ultimately, this is about inculcating a culture of nonpartisanship from accession sources to the most senior ranks of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, engages with sailors while on board the USS James E. Williams (DDG-95). Active-duty service members must be properly trained to distinguish between a nonpartisan political activity, such as providing military advice to a member of Congress in an official capacity, and a partisan one, such as openly expressing support for one party.

The current discussion and training on political behavior lacks engagement with the not-so-clear “yellow” areas—things that might be permissible by the letter of the regulation but require judgment to make sure that the spirit of the regulations and norms is not violated. For example, the regulations clearly state that a member of the military can express a personal opinion about political candidates and political issues. But what if one of those candidates is the current President or Vice President? What if a negative opinion is shared on social media on an account that is ambiguous regarding the active-duty military status of the person posting? And how does one interpret a DoD Directive from 2008 that does not address the rapidly evolving, ubiquitous social media environment of 2024?

Second, with so little common ground among political parties on almost every major issue, how does one distinguish between a nonpartisan political activity or issue and a partisan one? Any training in this area should engage participants with case studies that develop the critical thought and judgment required to navigate this complex political landscape. Stoplight charts and lists are heavy on the “what” and woefully short on the “why.” Without serious discussion of the rationale and essential role of a nonpartisan military, leaders in the naval services and the sailors and Marines on the deckplates will not be fully equipped to understand and apply these important regulations or reinforce norms in daily interactions. The Naval Academy has begun initiatives to both educate and train midshipmen on these issues, but the Department of the Navy should cover these issues with a robust module of annual general military training (GMT) in the years ahead.   

As part of a GMT module, everyone from E-1 to O-10 must be engaged at a basic level on why this matters. As many civil-military relations scholars have noted, a society viewing the military as a partisan actor can lead to disastrous consequences, including erosion of the trust that underpins democracy. Since George Washington resigned his commission at the end of the American Revolution and deferred to Congress, the American model of civilian control of the military has remained essential to preserving the Constitution and a balance of power among accountable civilian branches. But that cannot be taken for granted.

In a society in which less than 1 percent of the population serves in the military at any given time, there is a higher probability that an influencer on social media wearing a uniform will be perceived to represent the entire military to a fragmented civilian audience. Given the power and reach of social media, a single post going viral that violates the regulations on partisan behavior in the military can disproportionately erode trust in the nonpartisan military in ways likely never envisioned when the regulations were written.

Leaders must step in when the line becomes blurred for military members between their obligations and rights as citizens to participate in their democracy and actions that sow disunity in the ranks and erode belief in a nonpartisan military loyal solely to the Constitution. This requires all leaders to recognize the line between personal topics and political issues that can quickly become highly partisan. Naval leaders of all ranks must not just understand these rules and norms surrounding political behavior, but ultimately must model and enforce proper political behavior for every sailor and Marine under their command.

The authors wish to thank Dr. Lindsay Cohn from the Naval War College for her comments during the writing of this article.