Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What criminal liability do soldiers face for following manifestly illegal orders in armed conflict?
Executive summary
Military law and scholarship in current reporting say service members who follow manifestly illegal orders can face criminal liability, but they also confront a tough legal landscape that includes a presumption an order is lawful and narrow defenses if a subordinate reasonably relied on orders (see the Uniform Code of Military Justice discussion) [1] [2]. Democrats and advocates are publicly urging troops to refuse illegal orders amid recent controversial strikes and deployments, while administration and other commentators dispute the clarity and practicability of that advice [3] [4] [5].
1. What “manifestly illegal” means in practice: historic touchstones and modern guidance
Courts and military lawyers use the phrase to mark orders that are obviously unlawful on their face — for example, orders to kill unarmed civilians or to commit rape — and high-profile past prosecutions, like Lt. Calley in Vietnam, are cited as precedents showing subordinates can be punished for carrying out atrocity orders [6]. Contemporary legal analysis reiterates that when an order is manifestly illegal a service member not only may refuse it but has a duty to do so under military law; obeying such an order can expose the subordinate to criminal charges [1].
2. The legal hurdles for a soldier who says “I was only following orders”
Military law provides an “obedience to orders” affirmative defense (Rule for Courts-Martial 916(d)) but limits it: it shields a subordinate only if the accused did not know the order was unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not have known it was unlawful; there is also a presumption that an order requiring military duty is lawful, placing the burden and risk on the subordinate who disobeys [2]. Analysts caution the “mistake of law” defense is difficult to sustain, meaning that claiming ignorance of illegality is often unpersuasive in court [2].
3. Real-world pressure points — when operational orders collide with criminal exposure
Democratic lawmakers and some legal commentators argue recent strikes and deployments have put troops in an “impossible position,” because the UCMJ both prohibits unlawful killing and requires obedience to orders, creating potential exposure whether they comply or refuse [4]. The lawmakers’ public appeals — a short video telling service members they “can refuse illegal orders” — aim to reassure troops but intentionally do not cite specific orders they consider illegal [3] [7].
4. Conflicting official claims and political noise
Reporting shows the Justice Department and administration lawyers have advanced legal rationales — including memos framing certain operations as part of an armed conflict with drug cartels — that they say limit criminal exposure for personnel, a claim noted and disputed in media coverage [8] [2]. Political actors have reacted sharply: some Democrats urge refusal of illegal orders, while President Trump publicly attacked those calls and framed them as treasonous, illustrating how political rhetoric complicates soldiers’ decisionmaking [5] [3].
5. Practical defenses and what courts look at after an alleged unlawful act
When prosecutions occur, courts examine whether the order was so clearly illegal that a reasonable person would have known, whether the subordinate had time and ability to refuse, and whether any official guidance or legal opinions shaped perceptions of lawfulness; commentators warn that “reasonable reliance” and affirmative defenses are narrow and fact-dependent [2]. Available reporting emphasizes that patently illegal orders offer little protection to those who obey, but proving that status post hoc is contested and fact-intensive [2].
6. Advice, ambiguity, and the gap between law and on-the-ground choices
Legal materials and advocacy FAQs tell service members they have a duty to refuse manifestly unlawful orders and that obedience can be criminally punishable [1] [6]. At the same time, analysts and commentators note that the presumption of lawfulness, competing legal memoranda from government lawyers, and immediate operational pressures create real ambiguity about what a reasonable service member can safely do — leaving hard choices with career, criminal, and safety consequences [2] [9].
7. Limitations and what the available reporting does not say
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of specific modern orders that courts would definitively classify as “manifestly illegal,” nor do they give case-by-case outcomes for hypothetical recent operations beyond general legal analysis and political debate (not found in current reporting). They also do not present a unified, government-wide manual change that resolves the tension between obedience and illegality across all scenarios (not found in current reporting).
Concluding note: current reporting and legal commentary converge on this core fact — soldiers can face criminal liability for following manifestly illegal orders, but the determination is highly fact-dependent, constrained by a presumption of lawfulness, and muddied by competing legal opinions and political controversy [1] [2] [3].