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 are examples of manifestly illegal orders and the consequences for following them?
Executive summary
Democratic lawmakers publicly urged U.S. service members and intelligence officials to “refuse illegal orders,” a message repeated across outlets including The New York Times and CNN; those lawmakers did not identify specific orders but linked the warning to recent controversial deployments and strikes [1] [2]. Military-legal guidance and reporting stress that manifestly illegal orders—typically those that direct overt crimes such as killing unarmed civilians—are not protected by the “just following orders” defense and can lead to court-martial or international prosecution if followed [3] [4].
1. What reporters and lawmakers actually said: a political warning, not a legal checklist
Multiple outlets summarized a short video from six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds urging active-duty personnel to refuse unlawful orders; the video framed the warning as a defense of the Constitution but did not enumerate concrete examples of impending illegal orders [1] [2] [5]. News organizations noted the message triggered partisan pushback, with critics saying the lawmakers offered no specific instances to justify the admonition [2] [6].
2. What counts as a “manifestly illegal” order under military law
Military law and expert FAQs cited by reporting say an order is presumed lawful unless it plainly contravenes the Constitution, U.S. law, or exceeds the issuing authority; that presumption does not apply to patently illegal orders—those that on their face direct the commission of a crime, such as an order to shoot unarmed civilians [3]. Legal commentary and defense practitioners warn the standard is high and often legally technical: a servicemember may only safely refuse when the illegality is obvious “on its face” [7].
3. Historical and judicial background invoked by coverage
Journalists and legal commentators point to precedents—My Lai and later war-crimes jurisprudence—that established following orders does not absolve individual responsibility for manifestly criminal acts; the reporting and analyses remind readers that U.S. and international law permit prosecution for carrying out unlawful killings even when ordered [8] [7]. Congressional letters referenced in coverage also argued that problematic strikes can put troops in the “impossible position” of risking prosecution whether they obey or refuse [9].
4. Consequences for following a manifestly illegal order
Several outlets and experts state plainly that service members who carry out illegal orders can face court-martial, criminal prosecution, and even international tribunal liability; “following orders” is not a blanket defense [4] [3]. Legal commentary adds a caution: refusing an order carries professional and disciplinary risks if the order is later judged lawful, meaning servicemembers face serious consequences either way depending on post-hoc legal determinations [10] [7].
5. Practical guidance and the real-world dilemma for troops
Coverage and military-law FAQs counsel that because lawfulness is often a question for military judges, the practical step is to seek prompt legal advice if possible and to refuse only clearly illegal orders (for example, orders to commit crimes against civilians). Experts warn hesitation or refusal without clear illegality can trigger administrative action or criminal charges if a court later deems the order lawful [3] [7].
6. Political context and competing perspectives in the coverage
Reporting emphasized the political stakes: Democrats framed the message as guarding constitutional norms in the face of recent National Guard deployments and foreign strikes, while critics accused them of politicizing the military and demanded concrete examples of unlawful orders [5] [6] [2]. Local and partisan outlets amplified both the lawmakers’ warnings and the pushback, showing how the same facts are being used to argue either caution or alarm [11] [12].
7. Limitations in available reporting and unanswered questions
Current articles document the exhortation and restate military-legal principles, but available sources do not list specific orders alleged to be illegal or provide case-by-case legal analyses of any particular recent orders [2] [1]. For concrete legal adjudication, reporting notes that military judges or tribunals normally must evaluate lawfulness after an order is obeyed or refused [3].
8. Bottom line for readers and service members
Legal doctrine and coverage converge: manifestly illegal orders—those directing clear crimes such as targeting unarmed civilians—are not to be obeyed and can expose followers to criminal liability, but determining illegality in ambiguous or politically fraught situations is legally complex and risky for service members who refuse without counsel [3] [4] [7]. The debate in the press is therefore both legal and political: lawmakers urge vigilance; critics demand specificity; military-legal sources stress caution and the need for legal advice [1] [6] [7].