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 specific actions by the U.S. military during the Trump administration have been alleged to be illegal orders?
Executive summary
Reporting around November 18–21, 2025 centers on a short video by six Democratic lawmakers telling service members “You can refuse illegal orders” and urging them to uphold the oath to the Constitution; President Trump called that message “seditious” and suggested severe punishments (including death) [1] [2] [3]. The lawmakers did not identify specific orders; critics and judges, however, have pointed to concrete controversies during the Trump administration — notably prolonged National Guard deployments in Washington, D.C., and lethal strikes on vessels at sea — as contexts in which some observers have questioned legality [4] [5] [6].
1. What the lawmakers said — a narrow, constitutional reminder
Six lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds produced a short video telling current service members and intelligence personnel that “you can refuse illegal orders” and that they “must refuse illegal orders,” framing the message as a reminder of the oath to the Constitution and existing military law; they did not list any single, identified order as an example [1] [7] [8].
2. How the White House and allies characterized it — rebellion and sedition
White House officials and allies responded by accusing the video of encouraging rebellion against the commander-in-chief; President Trump amplified that framing by calling the lawmakers’ message “seditious behavior” and saying it was “punishable by death,” a post widely reported and criticized across outlets [2] [3] [9].
3. Legal baseline cited by reporters — troops may refuse unlawful orders
Multiple outlets note the established military principle that service members must obey lawful orders and may not follow illegal orders (the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the enlistment oath provide that baseline); legal scholars cited in reporting said there was nothing in the lawmakers’ video inconsistent with military justice as currently written [10] [11] [6].
4. Concrete actions raised as potential flashpoints — Guard deployments and maritime strikes
Although the lawmakers didn’t name specific orders, reporting highlights two recurring controversies under the Trump administration that observers say could produce legally questionable orders: the monthslong deployment and unusual roles given to National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., which a federal judge found violated local authority and ordered ended, and a series of lethal strikes on vessels the administration said were drug-running boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, where lawmakers and some service members expressed concern about legal justification [4] [5] [6].
5. What critics say about vagueness and risk of politicizing the military
Critics — including some former service members and administration officials — argue the lawmakers’ message risked encouraging insubordination because it did not specify what orders would be “illegal,” and they warned the phrasing could politicize the force by inviting troops to refuse presidential directives [12] [9] [8].
6. Legal experts and judges: context matters, and courts have intervened
Reporting cites legal scholars who emphasize that refusing an unlawful order is a recognized duty under military law, and it is unlawful orders — e.g., orders facilitating clear constitutional violations — that could trigger refusal; meanwhile, a federal judge concluded the administration’s long DC Guard deployment “violates the Constitution” and improperly intrudes on local authority, offering an example where courts have found administration practices unlawful [10] [4].
7. What the sources do not say — no single, adjudicated illegal order identified
Available sources show debates and controversies but do not point to a single, specific Trump-era military order that has been universally adjudicated as “illegal” beyond the judge’s finding about the DC Guard deployment; the lawmakers themselves did not enumerate discrete orders in their video [4] [1].
8. Competing narratives and hidden agendas to note
Democratic lawmakers framed their message as protecting constitutional norms amid concern over domestic deployments and maritime strikes; the Trump administration framed the same words as fomenting insurrection and attempted to criminalize the messengers. Each side has an implicit political interest: lawmakers seeking to constrain executive military use, and the administration seeking to preserve presidential control of forces [7] [2] [6].
9. Bottom line for readers — law, fact, and political framing are distinct
The legal rule that service members must disobey unlawful orders is established and cited by reporters and experts; the recent dispute centers on whether the administration’s practices (notably extended National Guard deployments and controversial strikes) amount to unlawful orders and whether reminding troops about refusal is prudent or dangerous. Available reporting documents the disagreement but does not supply a single newsroom-verified instance of a particular order issued to troops during this Trump administration that has been universally declared illegal beyond court findings related to deployment authority [10] [4] [5].
If you want, I can compile the exact timeline and court documents around the D.C. National Guard ruling, or summarize the publicly reported maritime strikes — both are the most concrete episodes cited in news coverage as legal flashpoints [4] [5].