By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a video released by six Democratic members of Congress urging service members to refuse illegal orders, Donald Trump reacted with threats of sedition charges. This prompted an investigation into one of the lawmakers for “serious allegations of misconduct.” The Uniform Code of Military Justice mandates obedience to lawful orders but also imposes a duty to disobey those deemed unlawful, as supported by legal precedent and historical examples of service members refusing to participate in illegal wars. Expert testimony, citing the Nuremberg Charter, UN Charter, and UCMJ, has been used in court-martial cases to defend those who refused to comply with potentially unlawful orders.
Read the original article here
Soldiers must disobey unlawful orders under Trump—it’s their legal duty. This isn’t a new concept, nor is it unique to any particular presidency, but it’s crucial to reiterate, especially given the current political climate. The very essence of military service is built upon a foundation of upholding the Constitution, a document that supersedes any individual, including the President. The oath of enlistment is a solemn promise to defend this Constitution, not to blindly follow a political figure or party.
This commitment extends to refusing unlawful orders. This isn’t merely a matter of personal ethics; it’s a legally mandated duty. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear on this: soldiers are obligated to disobey orders that violate the Constitution, international laws of war, or any other established legal principle. The phrase “I was just following orders” offers no protection in a court-martial. This is a point of emphasis for both officers and enlisted alike. The responsibility to distinguish between lawful and unlawful orders rests with every service member, regardless of rank. The stakes are immense, potentially including personal prosecution for any crimes committed while following an illegal directive.
What constitutes an unlawful order? The lines can sometimes be blurry, but some examples are clear. Orders to fire on unarmed civilians, engage in torture, loot and destroy property not directly related to military operations, or violate the basic principles of human rights are all unequivocally unlawful. Orders that run counter to the US Constitution fall into this category as well. A president, regardless of their position, does not have the authority to compel the military to disregard the fundamental laws of the nation. It’s a sad state of affairs that this even needs to be stated as a warning, but some situations become so obviously illegal that a soldier should realize there are potential consequences for following such an order.
The potential for such orders to be given under a Trump presidency is a valid cause for concern. The actions of any president can be examined, and there are valid reasons to question any order issued that seems questionable. It’s imperative that every member of the armed forces understands their rights and responsibilities in such situations, and the legal framework that protects them when they choose to do the right thing, even when under direct orders. They must feel supported, and not be left to the wolves.
However, the military is a structured hierarchy and the chain of command exists for good reasons. It’s true that soldiers don’t have the resources to challenge every order. The ability to identify an unlawful order often lies with the officers, who have the training and resources to make such assessments. This is why the perceived political purges of military officers, particularly those in legal roles like the Judge Advocate General (JAG), are cause for alarm. A healthy and independent JAG corps is essential for ensuring that soldiers have access to the legal expertise necessary to make informed decisions about the legality of orders. It is important to remember that all orders are presumed to be legal until proven otherwise, but that does not mean soldiers should not question what they are asked to do.
It is disheartening, and a little unnerving, that this message seems to be controversial to some. For the military, the protection of the Constitution, and by extension the nation, is paramount. This principle is not a matter of political allegiance; it’s a matter of duty, honor, and loyalty to the very foundation of the United States. In conclusion, the message is simple: soldiers have a legal and moral obligation to disobey unlawful orders, especially during times of political instability. The military exists to protect the Constitution, and that includes protecting itself from being used as a tool to undermine it.