Do you think that we will see more UCMJ for Contempt Towards Officials (Article 88) in today's divided country under a Trump administration?

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if things were normal. They are not in the case of today. People are being extremely emotional, divided amongst absolutes (you don't like it? your a -ist or -phobe), and the new generation is apparently upset with the 'system'.

CW5 (Join to see) - I don't disagree with you, but I tend to trust in our people. If they go off the rails, guys like you are going to "counsel" with words like "Hey, I get you don't like the man/etc, but while wearing the uniform, or representing the Service, you've got to be tactful." Gentle reminders will likely tell people "keep your mouth shut at the office & on social media" which doesn't fix the issue but it does make the symptoms go away.

Right on the mark, much as it is done today.

SGM Erik Marquez - Art 134 is pretty much a catch all Article. It is probably the most used Article on an MP Blotter. I agree with you, I never saw it used. Also, the units I was in were disciplined enough that the Soldiers didn't spout off nonsense against the POTUS.

SGM Steve Wettstein - It is a catch all, but also has specific sub components to address specific charges...and non of those sub components address "disparaging the POTUS" If the command though the remark was prejudicial to good order and discipline, and if the commander and the UCMJ athority believed they could get a CM conviction, they are free to charge and tri the member...But I think it would be a long shot to get a jury of the members peers to hand out a federal conviction for the crime of calling the POTUS a doo doo head, liar, dishonest, or even unfit to command.

Ok, SGM Erik Marquez , heres a paper about the history of Article 88 and how even a general was prosecuted under art. 88 in the Clinton administration.
https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DOCLIBS/ARMYLAWYER.NSF/0/686b63c [login to see] 5256e5b0054e11a/$FILE/Article%201.pdf

Miltary Review had a more in depth article but I am not paying for that subscription.

CW5 (Join to see) - Thanks sir, so now I can say in 52 years, 28 serving, I have now heard of a few... I had no doubt there would be some, more im sure.
I apologize if my point was not more clear. I was never saying NO ONE had been prosecuted, just that the rate of those being charged and convicted of an ART 88 (or 134 for enlisted) for bad mouthing the POTUS must be fairly small, insgifinigant even statsitcally wise.
It seems these charges have been lived by Presidents Clinton, Lincoln, Wilson,
Coolidge, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson. So all well before my time but for Clinton, and thinking back i can remember the warnings, but not caring about it personally it fell on deaf ears.
Having not done the research, and knowing the US Gov never writes a rule, reg or policy that was not already needed because of past actions..Id guess art 88 was added post seeing the need, and in that era it was used,,,,perhaps before my time?
All I know (knew) was having been surrounded by brash, loudmouth, impulsive verity of Soldiers for a lot of years, and having heard more then a few remarks that could have gotten them charged with ART 88 or 134...none ever were, nor until today had I even heard of a charge.