Has Pete Hegseth publicly advocated orders that could be unlawful for soldiers to follow?
Executive summary
Pete Hegseth has publicly urged service members not to follow unlawful orders in a resurfaced 2016 speech and related remarks, telling troops the military “won’t follow unlawful orders” and that there should be “consequences” for carrying out unlawful acts [1] [2]. Recently he has aggressively denounced six Democratic lawmakers who urged troops to refuse illegal orders, ordered a Navy review of Sen. Mark Kelly’s comments and opened scrutiny that could lead to punishment — while denying allegations that he ordered an unlawful strike in the Caribbean [3] [4] [5].
1. What Hegseth has actually said on unlawful orders — resurfaced remarks and recent statements
In a clip from a 2016 talk that resurfaced in late 2025, Hegseth plainly told an audience that the military “won’t follow unlawful orders” and that there must be “consequences” for carrying out “completely unlawful and ruthless” acts — language that mirrors the core message of the Democratic video he later condemned [1] [2] [6]. Multiple outlets published the same passage: he cited the military rule against obeying unlawful commands and framed that rule as a necessary guardrail against war crimes [1] [7].
2. How those past remarks conflict with Hegseth’s recent posture toward Democrats
Despite the 2016 clip, Hegseth has publicly labeled a November 2025 video by six Democratic lawmakers urging troops to refuse unlawful orders as “seditious” and “despicable,” and he initiated a review of Sen. Mark Kelly’s comments by ordering the Navy to deliver findings by December 10 [8] [3] [4]. Critics and some legal experts say Hegseth’s attacks risk unlawful command influence — because his public denunciations could be seen as pressuring outcomes in any disciplinary proceedings tied to Kelly’s remarks [8] [9].
3. Allegations that Hegseth ordered unlawful killings in the Caribbean — reporting and denials
Reporting has linked Hegseth to alleged orders tied to a September 2025 operation in the Caribbean, including claims a follow-up strike targeted two survivors and may have been illegal; lawmakers and experts have launched probes into whether he or others bear criminal liability [5] [10]. Hegseth has called such reporting “fake news” and insisted the strikes were “lawful under both US and international law” [5]. The Conversation and other outlets note ongoing investigations but conclude prosecutions are uncertain [10].
4. Legal standards and the arguments in play
News coverage notes established military law: service members are taught they must not obey orders that are clearly unlawful, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice and post‑Nuremberg principles do not permit obedience to manifestly illegal orders as a blanket defense [1] [4]. Administration officials argue the Democrats’ video could encourage disobedience of lawful orders, while defenders of the lawmakers say the video simply reiterated longstanding legal duties and cautioned against war crimes [8] [4].
5. Competing perspectives and hidden incentives
Two clear viewpoints exist in the reporting. Hegseth and the administration frame the Democrats’ statements as vague, politically motivated and potentially dangerous to discipline [3] [11]. Opponents point to Hegseth’s own 2016 rhetoric telling troops to refuse unlawful orders and argue his current actions are politically charged and may constitute unlawful command influence [1] [8]. Several outlets also highlight that Hegseth’s ordering of internal reviews and public denunciations follow high‑stakes policy operations — including contentious anti‑narcotics strikes — creating an incentive to control the narrative and blunt congressional critics [5] [10].
6. What is and is not established by current reporting
Established facts in the available reporting: Hegseth in 2016 said the military should not follow unlawful orders and that there should be consequences for unlawful acts [1] [2]. He later condemned Democratic lawmakers’ video and ordered a Navy review of Sen. Kelly’s remarks [3] [4]. Investigations and reporting have questioned whether a September 2025 strike and a follow‑up attack were unlawful and whether Hegseth played a role; Hegseth denies issuing illegal orders [5] [10]. Available sources do not mention a judicial or criminal finding that Hegseth issued an unlawful order — only reporting, denials and ongoing reviews [5] [10].
7. Bottom line for readers
Hegseth has publicly advocated that service members should refuse unlawful orders (as shown in the unearthed 2016 remarks) even as he now pursues and publicly condemns others who give the same general advice. Reporting raises plausible questions about his role in specific 2025 strikes, but current coverage shows allegations, denials, and active reviews rather than final legal determinations [1] [5] [10]. Readers should weigh both Hegseth’s earlier statements encouraging refusal of illegal orders and his present aggressive posture toward critics — and note that multiple investigations and legal analyses are ongoing [8] [10].