U.S. Air Force Maj. Jason Watson, a staff officer stationed in Bydgoszcz, Poland, was arrested on the Capitol steps on Wednesday, July 1, 2026, after holding a sign reading “Impeach Convict Remove” and calling for the removal of President Trump and Vice President Vance. Watson, in uniform, opened his remarks by reciting the oath to the Constitution that he first swore 21 years earlier upon entering basic cadet training at the Air Force Academy in June 2005.
He began active duty in May 2009, giving him roughly 17 years of active-duty service. Before his arrest, he said that “who I am is immaterial” and that what mattered was “the price I’m willing to pay to say it.”
The arrest stemmed from protocol, not the content of Watson’s speech. Demonstrating on the House steps is illegal unless a Member of Congress is present. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who had escorted Watson to the steps, left the area, and officers gave lawful orders to stop. Watson refused and was arrested under D.C. Code § 22-1307, Crowding, Obstructing, and Incommoding. He was released the same day. On Thursday, July 2, a D.C. Superior Court official told CNN that the case would not be prosecuted.
Watson framed his protest around four constitutional claims, none of which has been decided by a court. He argued that the strikes on Iran and Venezuela violated the War Powers Clause and led to the deaths of 13 service members. Watson is not a constitutional lawyer, and no court has ruled in his favor on that claim. He also argued that Elon Musk’s access to federal databases through DOGE violated the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses. Lawsuits are pending, but no wrongdoing has been proven.
He said migrants deported to CECOT in El Salvador were denied due process; however, no migrants were deported to CECOT under any U.S. order. Deportees were sent to El Salvador because they were either Salvadoran citizens or their home countries would not accept them. Under Salvadoran law, El Salvador itself, not the U.S., determines who is sent to CECOT as an alleged terrorist or gang member.
He cited the administration’s response to protesters, including January’s shooting of a protestor with a non-lethal round by an ICE officer, as a First Amendment violation. The case he referenced involved an officer attempting to make an arrest of a protester, Katelyn Skye Seitz, who went by “Skye Jones,” when a fellow demonstrator, Kaden Rummler, 21, ran toward the officers and was struck at close range in Santa Ana, California, on January 9, 2026, permanently blinding him in his left eye. Rummler was a self-described member of the activist group Dare to Struggle, not a formal legal observer.
Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, without naming Watson, said in a statement that an investigation into the incident will proceed unimpeded and that the department “takes allegations of misconduct seriously, including any that might undermine the nonpartisan nature of our military.”
The relevant statute is Article 88 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 888), which bars commissioned officers from using contemptuous words against the president, vice president, and Congress; separate DoD policy also bars political activity in uniform. As of July 4, no charge, court-martial referral, or administrative separation has been announced. Possible outcomes range from a letter of reprimand to involuntary separation or court-martial, depending on the investigation’s findings.
The event was organized by the Removal Coalition, founded by Jessica Denson, who said Watson had reached out to the group in February. Denson has partnered with Free Speech For People, Women’s March, 50501, and Citizens’ Impeachment on prior nationwide days of action, including a March 28 event tied to the “No Kings 3.0” rally.
Watson said explicitly he is “not a Democrat” and knows “next to nothing” about Green’s broader positions, saying he backed Green only because Green had invoked Rule 9 to force an impeachment vote in December 2025. The House tabled that resolution 237-140, with all Republicans and 23 Democrats voting to kill it and 47 Democrats voting present. Prediction market Kalshi currently prices 64 percent odds that Trump is impeached before January 2028.
Green said he “was there to witness a major in the United States military bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice,” calling it the kind of courage necessary to inspire others. Green lost his Democratic primary earlier this year.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), an Air Force veteran, said it says a great deal about Watson’s conviction that he made the statement in uniform, adding he is “undoubtedly aware of the consequences of his actions and is willing to sacrifice likely his career and possibly his freedom.” She said she is enormously frustrated that her Republican colleagues, the Speaker, and the Senate remain unwilling to use their authority to call for Trump’s removal.
Houlahan did not address the fact that impeachment requires the House to determine that there are grounds for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” As of this writing, no court has found President Trump guilty of any of the constitutional violations Watson alleged, and no articles of impeachment based on those allegations have been adopted by the House.
Public fundraisers for Watson have so far raised more than $139,000 on SpotFund and more than $5,000 on GoFundMe.
Those encouraging the military to refuse “illegal orders,” or reminding service members that their allegiance is to the Constitution rather than the president, overlook the fact that soldiers have no constitutional authority to interpret or adjudicate constitutional questions; that authority belongs to the judiciary under Marbury v. Madison.
The duty to disobey illegal orders is generally illustrated by the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, in which U.S. soldiers murdered hundreds of civilians. Soldiers are taught that they have a duty to refuse illegal orders, but the grounds on which Watson and others call for Trump’s removal involve complex questions of constitutional law that would ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even then, the removal of a U.S. president would require significant additional legal action beyond a single court ruling against a current U.S. policy.
