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.
Can you disobey a direct order from a military officer
Executive summary
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires service members to obey lawful orders but also bars following unlawful or “patently illegal” orders; courts and military lawyers decide lawfulness, and refusing an order carries legal risk if a judge later finds it was lawful [1] [2]. Recent political debate was sparked when six Democratic lawmakers urged troops to “refuse illegal orders,” prompting President Trump to call that advice “seditious” and provoking coverage about Articles 90 and 92 of the UCMJ and who bears the duty to refuse illegal commands [3] [4] [5].
1. What the law actually says: obedience vs. illegality
The UCMJ frames a servicemember’s duty as to obey lawful orders; an order is presumed lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, federal law, or clearly beyond the issuer’s authority, and a “patently illegal” order—one that directs the commission of a crime—does not enjoy that presumption [1]. Military criminal provisions most often cited in this debate are Article 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer) and Article 92 (failure to obey an order), which can be applied when troops disobey orders that a military judge later deems lawful [5] [6].
2. Who decides whether an order is illegal — and when
The Rules for Courts-Martial and legal experts emphasize that lawfulness is ultimately a legal question for a military judge or other tribunal to decide, typically after a service member either obeys or disobeys and the issue is litigated; that means a servicemember who refuses an order risks prosecution if the judge finds the order was lawful [1]. Practically, commanders have legal advisers on staff to help assess orders, but rank-and-file troops rarely have equivalent access in the moment, which creates real uncertainty for those asked to act [6].
3. Differences of responsibility by rank and role
Analysts and commentators note an important institutional distinction: officers have an affirmative duty to refuse unlawful orders as part of their legal and command responsibilities, while enlisted personnel swear to both support the Constitution and to obey orders “according to regulations and the UCMJ”—creating different expectations and consequences across ranks [7] [8]. The Bulwark piece [7] argues that urging “the entire military” to refuse orders can blur the system’s built-in distinctions and duties.
4. Recent political flashpoint: lawmakers’ video and the reaction
Six Democratic members of Congress with military or intelligence backgrounds released a short video telling service members they can and must refuse illegal orders amid controversy over lethal strikes and other policies; they framed their message as a constitutional and legal obligation, not a call to insubordination [3] [8]. President Trump responded by labeling the video “seditious behavior” and saying the lawmakers should be arrested and could face death—comments that media outlets reported and that prompted debate about rhetoric, legal realities, and presidential statements [4] [9] [10].
5. Practical consequences for service members who refuse
Multiple outlets caution that refusing an order on the basis of illegality “runs the risk that a military judge will disagree”; service members who decline orders they believe unlawful may still face court-martial if their claim of illegality is not sustained [11] [6]. Conversely, service members who follow orders later adjudicated to be criminally unlawful can also be held responsible for participating in illegal acts, as UCMJ and international law permit prosecution for committing crimes even under orders [1] [8].
6. How commentators and institutions frame the debate
Conservative commentators and some Republican leaders characterized the lawmakers’ video as dangerously encouraging insubordination and undermining good order and discipline, citing the risk of court-martial under Article 92 for obeying or disobeying contested orders [12] [13]. Other analysts and the lawmakers themselves framed the message as a reminder of constitutional duty and the UCMJ’s prohibition on illegal orders, pointing to legal protections and past guidance meant to prevent crimes carried out under color of orders [8] [14].
7. Limits of available reporting and what’s not in these sources
Available sources explain legal standards, political reactions, and commentary, but they do not provide an exhaustive legal manual for every scenario; they do not list specific orders that are currently under definitive judicial or military-legal rulings in this matter nor do they offer step-by-step safe channels for refusal beyond noting commanders’ legal staffs and that determinations often occur later in court [1] [6]. For individual or operational legal advice, the sources point to specialized legal counsel and organizations like The Orders Project and Military Law Task Force as resources but do not substitute for tailored legal counsel [11] [1].
Bottom line: The UCMJ recognizes both an obligation to obey lawful orders and a prohibition on following unlawful ones, but who bears the burden to decide and when that decision is safe differs by rank and circumstance—and refusing an order can expose a service member to prosecution if a military court later finds the order lawful [1] [2] [6].