Illegal orders
Executive summary
Six Democratic lawmakers released a video on Nov. 18, 2025 urging U.S. service members they “can refuse illegal orders,” prompting Pentagon review, an FBI request to interview the lawmakers, and sharp public debate about legality and discipline [1] [2] [3]. Military law and analysts cited in reporting say service members may refuse “patently illegal” orders but determinations often happen after the fact in courts-martial or military judges’ rulings; critics say the lawmakers’ message lacked legal context, while supporters insist the reminder is accurate and necessary given disputed recent actions [4] [1] [3].
1. What the video said and who made it
A group of six Democratic members of Congress — including Sen. Mark Kelly and Rep. Elissa Slotkin — published a short video telling troops and intelligence personnel that their oath is to the Constitution and that they “can” and “must” refuse unlawful or illegal orders; the clip offered no concrete examples or legal details, which critics say created confusion [1] [5].
2. Legal footing: when refusals are permitted
Military law provides that orders are presumed lawful unless “contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States” or “patently illegal,” with a patently illegal order (for example, one that requires the commission of a crime) exempt from the duty to follow — but the ultimate legality is usually decided by a judge or in a court-martial after the fact, meaning refusal carries risk [4].
3. Government response: investigations and interviews
The Pentagon announced a review into Sen. Mark Kelly for possible breach of military law, saying the statements could interfere with “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline” [2]. Separately, the FBI has requested interviews with the six lawmakers who appeared in the video, according to Justice Department and Reuters reporting [3] [6].
4. Political context and disputed examples
Lawmakers and commentators tied the timing of the video to recent actions by the administration — notably orders to destroy small “fast boats” suspected of narcotics trafficking and proposals to use troops for domestic law enforcement — which Democrats privately and some commanders say may raise legality concerns; however, the lawmakers in the video did not cite specific orders [2] [3] [7].
5. Critiques: message, delivery, and potential harms
Military outlets and some analysts argue the message, while legally defensible in abstract, was “poorly delivered” because it lacked context or concrete guidance for service members on how to assess or refuse an order, risking confusion in a hierarchical force where presumptive obedience is the norm [1]. The Pentagon framed such public admonitions as potentially undermining discipline [2].
6. Defenders: accuracy and duty to the Constitution
Supporters of the lawmakers point to the longstanding rule that the oath is to the Constitution and the Manual for Courts-Martial’s language that an order directing a crime is not lawful, arguing the reminder is legally correct and warranted amid disputed executive actions [4] [1].
7. What service members actually understand and face
Survey research cited in reporting suggests many service members do understand the legal distinction between lawful and unlawful orders and the duty at times to disobey manifestly unlawful ones; nonetheless, the practical reality is that refusing an order can expose an individual to court-martial or legal peril, with lawfulness often adjudicated later [8] [4].
8. Competing narratives and potential agendas
Defenders of the Pentagon’s response frame the lawmakers’ video as political grandstanding that risks undermining military cohesion [2]. Critics of the administration argue the investigations reflect an effort to intimidate dissent and avoid scrutiny of potentially illegal orders, noting that some legal challenges to administration actions have already found certain deployments or directives unlawful [9] [10].
9. Bottom line for readers
The key legal point in reporting is undisputed: service members are not required to follow patently illegal orders, but determining what counts as “patently illegal” is often a legal process that can follow a refusal; the recent controversy centers less on that principle than on whether the lawmakers’ public admonition was responsibly framed and whether the administration’s responses are proportionate [4] [1] [2].
Limitations: available sources do not provide transcripts of every remark in the video, do not show any court-martial or criminal charges arising from a refusal tied to this episode, and do not settle whether any specific recent order was definitively illegal — those matters remain in dispute or litigation [3] [2].