Have there been high-profile cases where troops were instructed to carry out illegal acts and how were they resolved?
Executive summary
High-profile 2025 episodes over “illegal orders” center on a November video by six Democratic lawmakers urging service members to refuse unlawful commands and the ensuing Pentagon and FBI responses; the Pentagon opened a review of Sen. Mark Kelly and the FBI requested interviews with the lawmakers [1] [2]. Experts and outlets disagree on legal risk: military law permits refusal of manifestly unlawful orders but warns troops risk punishment if illegality is not clear, and legal commentators say the lawmakers’ video was not itself illegal [3] [4] [5].
1. A political flashpoint that began as a public service message
Six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds released a video telling service members “you can refuse illegal orders,” explicitly framing the message as constitutional duty rather than advocacy of disobedience; that video triggered a high-profile backlash from the White House and defense officials [5] [6] [4].
2. Immediate institutional responses: Pentagon review and FBI outreach
The Pentagon announced a review into Sen. Mark Kelly for possible misconduct and said it could consider recall to active duty and court-martial proceedings; separately, Reuters and The New York Times reported the FBI sought interviews with the six lawmakers about the video [1] [2] [7].
3. Legal terrain: duty to disobey vs. risk of punishment
Military law and practice draw a narrow but crucial line: service members are required to obey lawful orders but must refuse “patently illegal” or “manifestly unlawful” orders; however, former military lawyers and analysts warn that ambiguity in most real-world cases means troops who refuse before a superior or court rules can face career-ending penalties, including court-martial [3] [8].
4. Expert disagreement over whether the lawmakers broke the law
Multiple legal experts and outlets told TIME and other outlets that the video itself was not seditious or illegal and that advising troops they may refuse unlawful orders is consistent with training; others — and the Pentagon’s decision to open a review — reflect an alternative view that civilian messaging to troops risks disrupting military discipline [4] [3] [1].
5. The operational context that raised alarms
Lawmakers’ concerns were anchored in controversial administration actions — notably strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific and domestic National Guard deployments — that some observers and members of Congress viewed as potentially unlawful or at least legally uncertain; the video did not cite a single order but referenced these broader controversies, which helps explain the heightened scrutiny [9] [2] [6].
6. Historical and doctrinal precedents mentioned in reporting
Reporting and advocacy groups note that U.S. military doctrine and the Manual for Courts-Martial allow refusal of “patently illegal” orders, but also cite cases where lower-ranking troops were punished while senior officials escaped prosecution — highlighting asymmetries in accountability when unlawful acts are alleged [9] [8].
7. Practical guidance and advocacy documents in circulation
Civilian legal groups have published FAQs and guidance aimed at service members on when and how to refuse orders in domestic deployments (citing Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Act nuances), and those materials underscore how legal technicalities — especially for domestic uses of force — make any refusal decision fraught [10].
8. Two competing framings driving public debate
One framing: the lawmakers’ message was a necessary reminder that the oath is to the Constitution and that troops may not obey criminal orders (endorsed by legal scholars and some outlets) [4]. Counter-framing: civilian officials publicly urging troops about which orders to obey undermines the military chain of command and risks politicizing the force — a concern emphasized by military commentators and the Pentagon’s actions [3] [1].
9. What reporting does not (yet) resolve
Available sources do not mention any completed prosecutions or court-martials stemming directly from this video or from troops refusing orders in the 2025 incidents; they also do not establish any adjudicated determination that the contested strikes or domestic deployments were illegal (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [9].
10. Bottom line for readers
This episode is both a legal question about the narrow duty to disobey manifestly unlawful commands and a political struggle over civilian-military boundaries; reporting shows concrete institutional reactions (Pentagon review, FBI interviews) and credible legal defenses of the lawmakers’ message, while also showing why troops face real risks if they refuse orders that are not clearly illegal [1] [2] [3] [4].