When Words Outrank Command: Col. Susan Meyers

A Deep Dive into Her Dismissal as Commander of Pituffik Space Base in Greenland

In April 2025, Col. Susan (Susannah) Meyers was relieved of her command at Pituffik Space Base in Greenland. The official reason? A “loss of confidence” in her ability to lead. The event made national headlines, but few articles have taken the time to examine exactly how her actions may have crossed legal and ethical boundaries as defined under military law—specifically the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Let’s walk through the facts, the applicable military standards, and how Col. Meyers’ email—intended to calm diplomatic tensions—ultimately resulted in her removal from command.

---

What Happened?

On March 28, 2025, Vice President JD Vance visited Pituffik Space Base and made highly controversial remarks criticizing Denmark’s governance of Greenland. He also revisited the Trump administration’s past interest in acquiring the territory.

A few days later, Col. Meyers sent an internal email to base personnel, including Danish, Canadian, and Greenlandic staff. In it, she stated that the Vice President’s comments “are not reflective of Pituffik Space Base.”

The Pentagon responded swiftly. She was relieved on April 10, citing “a loss of confidence.” No criminal charges have been filed, but her dismissal raises important questions about what military laws and standards may have been violated—even unintentionally.

---

The Legal Framework: UCMJ and Command Responsibility

Military commanders are not like civilian managers. They are held to higher standards—legally, ethically, and professionally. The UCMJ outlines these expectations. Even when criminal charges aren’t pursued, violating these standards can lead to administrative action, including relief of command.

Let’s examine the specific articles of the UCMJ and Department of Defense policies that may have applied in Col. Meyers’ case.

---

1. Article 88 – Contempt Toward Officials

Summary: Commissioned officers may not use contemptuous words against the President, Vice President, Congress, and other high officials.

Application: Col. Meyers didn’t insult or attack Vice President Vance personally. However, her email—which implied the base did not share the Vice President’s views—could be seen as contradicting and delegitimizing an elected official’s public stance. That’s a dangerous line for any active-duty officer, especially in writing and in an official capacity.

While Article 88 is rarely enforced unless the speech is clearly disrespectful or slanderous, its spirit reinforces the importance of showing respect and deference to elected leaders—even if you disagree with their politics.

---

2. Article 92 – Failure to Obey a Lawful Order or Regulation

Summary: Disobeying lawful orders or violating official regulations is punishable under this article.

Relevant Orders and Policies:

• DoD Directive 1344.10 prohibits partisan political activities by service members.
• Joint Ethics Regulation (DoD 5500.07-R) prohibits official communications from expressing political views or appearing to do so.

Analysis: By issuing a base-wide statement that distanced the unit from the Vice President’s remarks, Col. Meyers entered risky territory. Her message was not only official—it was political, whether she intended it or not.

Under Article 92, commanders are held accountable for missteps like this, especially if their actions appear to challenge the chain of command or inject partisanship into official military matters.

---

3. Article 133 – Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman

Summary: Officers are expected to uphold the highest moral and ethical standards.

Application: Article 133 is broad. It’s often used when officers act in ways that undermine public trust in military leadership, even if their actions aren’t criminal.

Col. Meyers may have acted out of concern for unit cohesion and diplomatic relationships—but in doing so, she publicly contradicted a senior elected official and drew the base into a political debate. That arguably falls into the realm of “conduct unbecoming” by creating the appearance of political dissent from within the military ranks.

---

4. Article 134 – Prejudicial Conduct

Summary: This “catch-all” article punishes any conduct that harms good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the armed forces.

Why it matters: When commanders make statements that are interpreted as political or insubordinate—even if well-intentioned—it can erode discipline. In this case, the Pentagon’s swift action indicates that the message was seen as harmful to civil-military relations and foreign policy credibility.

Col. Meyers’ email may have caused confusion both inside and outside the base about whether the military supported or opposed the civilian leadership’s position. That confusion alone is enough to justify relief under Article 134.

---

Civilian Oversight and the Chain of Command

In the U.S. military, the President and Vice President are at the top of the chain of command. Officers are sworn to obey lawful orders and remain apolitical in their official duties. There is a long-standing expectation—backed by law—that military leaders do not publicly contradict civilian leadership, especially not in an official capacity.

Col. Meyers’ email directly undercut that expectation. She might have believed she was protecting diplomatic relationships or base morale, but the act of disavowing the Vice President’s remarks was not hers to make. The responsibility for foreign policy statements belongs to civilian leaders.

---

The Role of Political Neutrality

Political neutrality is a bedrock principle of military professionalism:

• It ensures the public trusts that the military serves the nation, not a political party.
• It protects the military from becoming a tool for partisanship.
• It reinforces civilian control over the military.

Even subtle political statements from uniformed leaders can undermine that neutrality. That’s why policies like DoD Directive 1344.10 exist—to prevent situations like this one.

Col. Meyers’ email, though arguably well-intentioned, placed the base in a position of appearing to oppose the Vice President. That perception alone can erode institutional integrity.

---

The “Loss of Confidence” Standard

Unlike criminal investigations, administrative removals like this one don’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Senior leaders have the authority to relieve commanders when they no longer trust their judgment or ability to lead.

In this case, here’s what likely triggered that loss of confidence:

• Publicly distancing the base from civilian leadership
• Sending a politically sensitive message in an official capacity
• Introducing diplomatic complications with a NATO ally (Denmark)
• Risking the perception of a military unit rejecting national policy

The threshold is simple: If the commander’s continued presence puts the mission, cohesion, or credibility at risk, they can be removed.

---

Final Thoughts: Leadership, Law, and the Limits of Initiative

Col. Meyers may have been trying to do the right thing—protecting her people, maintaining international harmony, and clarifying confusion. But in the military, how you do things often matters as much as why.

Her decision to speak on behalf of the base and contradict the Vice President may not have been criminal, but it crossed clear boundaries set by UCMJ and DoD policy.

Commanders are expected to lead with integrity, discretion, and respect for the chain of command. In today’s hyper-politicized world, even well-meaning leaders must be careful not to appear partisan. Military leadership is not just about boldness—it’s also about restraint.

---

Bottom Line:

Col. Meyers’ removal underscores an essential truth about military service: political neutrality isn’t optional, and commanders must always be aware of how their words—even internal ones—can carry institutional consequences.

_______________________________

Dave served 38 years in the USAF and Air National Guard as an aircraft crew chief, where he retired as a CMSgt. He has held a wide variety of technical, instructor, consultant, and leadership positions in his more than 40 years of civilian and military aviation experience. Dave holds an FAA Airframe and Powerplant license from the FAA, as well as a Master’s degree in Aeronautical Science. He currently runs his own consulting and training company and has written for numerous trade publications.

His true passion is exploring and writing about issues facing the military, and in particular, aircraft maintenance personnel.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.