Were commanders or superiors prosecuted for issuing allegedly illegal orders between 2017 and 2021?

1. Legal duty to refuse: the baseline rule

U.S. military law and legal commentary make clear that service members and officers are required to refuse unlawful orders: the Uniform Code of Military Justice obliges obedience only to “lawful” orders, and following “manifestly unlawful” commands can expose personnel to prosecution or court‑martial ^{[1] [2]}. Several sources reiterate that “just following orders” is no defense for war crimes and that military law and international precedent require individual legal judgment when an order is plainly illegal ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Prosecutions of superiors — what the sources say (and don’t say)

None of the provided items documents a prosecution from 2017–2021 of a commander or superior for having issued an illegal order. The search results explain the legal framework and historic precedents (e.g., Yamashita, My Lai-era prosecutions) and discuss theoretical risks, but do not present a direct example of a superior being criminally charged in that 2017–2021 window for issuing an unlawful command ^{[4] [5]}. Available sources do not mention a specific case of a commanding officer prosecuted during 2017–2021 for issuing illegal orders.

3. Policy and judicial context that shapes enforcement

Commentary notes two institutional facts that limit prosecutions: internal military legal channels (JAG and general counsel) often shape whether orders are vetted or defended, and high‑level judicial rulings on presidential immunity affect how obvious — and therefore prosecutable — an “illegal” command might appear. The Supreme Court’s broader immunity rulings have been said to create ambiguity about whether certain presidential actions might be insulated, which in turn complicates prospects for prosecuting those who issue orders or those who follow them ^{[6] [3]}.

4. Political controversies where “illegal orders” were discussed, not prosecuted

From 2024–2025 reporting and fact checks, lawmakers and commentators debated whether troops should refuse potentially unlawful orders and criticized particular operational choices (for example, contested strike authorities and National Guard deployments), but these debates centered on urging refusal or clarifying law rather than on charging commanders criminally for issuing orders during 2017–2021 ^{[7] [8]}. News outlets covered lawmakers’ videos urging refusal of illegal orders and legal experts confirmed the statements reflected existing law — coverage but not prosecutions ^{[7] [2]}.

5. Practical obstacles to prosecuting commanders

The sources highlight practical obstacles: determining when an order is “manifestly” illegal is legally and factually complex; military attorneys and higher echelons can provide legal cover; and prosecutorial decisions are influenced by chain‑of‑command dynamics and political considerations. Observers warn that immunity doctrines and internal legal advice can create “gray areas” that reduce prospects for criminal charges against superiors ^{[4] [6] [3]}.

6. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas

Commentators sympathetic to stronger enforcement stress duty and precedents holding commanders accountable (citing Nuremberg and domestic cases) ^{[4] [5]}. Others worry that calls to refuse orders can be politicized and that public appeals by lawmakers may blur distinctions between lawful and unlawful commands; fact‑checking outlets and legal analysts insist the duty to refuse illegal orders is long‑standing but caution about politicizing individual incidents ^{[8] [2]}. Some coverage also points to possible institutional bias: removal or reshuffling of military lawyers was framed as potentially reducing internal checks on controversial orders ^[7].

7. What we can conclude from these sources

From the materials provided, the conclusion is: the legal obligation to disobey unlawful orders is clear and well‑documented, but the sources do not report prosecutions of commanders or superiors for issuing allegedly illegal orders between 2017 and 2021; instead, they document debate, legal explanation, and concern about gray areas and institutional factors that make such prosecutions difficult or rare ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If you need identification of any specific prosecution, available sources do not mention such cases for 2017–2021 and additional targeted reporting or official military records would be required.