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.
Has the military carried out illegal orders or have they been asked by the president to carry out illegal orders?
Executive summary
Debate over whether the U.S. military has carried out — or been asked by the president to carry out — illegal orders is currently a mix of long-standing legal principles and recent political dispute: military law says service members must refuse patently illegal orders (e.g., orders to commit crimes) [1], and Democratic lawmakers recently reminded troops of that duty in a viral video, prompting President Trump to call the message “seditious” and say such lawmakers should be punished [2] [3]. Reporting shows commentators and legal experts agree troops can and sometimes must disobey unlawful orders, while coverage notes no specific, admitted recent instance in the sources of the president directing troops to commit a manifestly illegal act [4] [5] [6].
1. The law: duty to disobey manifestly illegal orders
Military law and doctrine draw a clear legal line: an order is presumed lawful unless it is “patently illegal,” and servicemembers can—and in some cases must—refuse such orders; courts ultimately decide lawfulness in many disputes [1]. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Manual for Courts-Martial require obedience to lawful orders but also recognize that following an unlawful order can itself be criminal if the order directs the commission of a crime [1] [7]. Analysts and legal primers reiterate that manifestly illegal orders (e.g., orders to kill unarmed civilians) are recognizable and may trigger an obligation to disobey [8] [9].
2. Recent flashpoint: lawmakers’ video and presidential response
On Nov. 18, 2025, six Democratic members of Congress with military or intelligence backgrounds released a short video urging current service members and intelligence officials to “refuse illegal orders” and to “stand up for our laws” [2] [10]. President Trump publicly denounced the clip as “seditious behavior,” said the lawmakers deserved arrest and even used language invoking punishment “punishable by DEATH,” which news outlets reported and sought clarification on from the White House [3] [11]. The exchange turned a legal principle into an immediate political confrontation with strong reactions across media and veterans’ communities [12] [13].
3. Evidence of presidential illegal orders in historical and contemporary reporting
Scholars and historical accounts show presidents in U.S. history have issued orders later judged unlawful or controversial—examples cited include Civil War suspension of habeas corpus and WWII-era executive actions affecting Japanese Americans—but these are contested and contextualized; sources point to debates rather than a simple catalogue of proven, recent illegal presidential orders [9]. Recent reporting in the provided material does not document an episode where the current president explicitly issued a manifestly illegal military order that was carried out and subsequently adjudicated as a crime; instead, coverage centers on legal debate, policy choices, and contested deployments like use of the Insurrection Act or maritime strikes that critics question [14] [15].
4. Where reporters and experts disagree
Some outlets and commentators treat the lawmakers’ message as legally correct but politically fraught — correct that troops may refuse illegal orders but risky because it can be interpreted as political interference in the chain of command [10] [16]. The White House and some Republicans framed the video as dangerous or provocative, while veterans’ organizations and many legal experts countered that the video simply restated existing law and duty [6] [17]. Legal experts cited in coverage told Newsweek and PBS that urging troops to obey the law is not sedition and that calling the video “punishable by death” is inaccurate and inflammatory [18] [13].
5. Practical limits for servicemembers in real time
Coverage highlights a practical problem: while commanders and staff judge legality often with legal counsel, rank-and-file troops rarely have immediate legal advice and face career and criminal risks if they refuse an order later found lawful — so the decision can be costly even when the law allows refusal of unlawful orders [6] [7]. Military guides and legal advice pieces urge consultation with military lawyers unless an order is clearly illegal on its face [19].
6. What reporting does and doesn’t show right now
Available reporting in the provided sources documents the legal framework, the November 2025 video, the president’s reaction, and the ensuing political debate [2] [3] [11]. The sources do not provide an example in which the current president explicitly ordered troops to commit a clearly illegal act that was carried out and legally adjudicated as an illegal order in the immediate recent reporting — therefore claims asserting specific recent illegal presidential orders are not documented in these materials and should be treated as not found in current reporting [9] [14].
7. Takeaway for readers
The duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders is entrenched in military law; reminding troops of that duty is legally supported but politically explosive when cast against a sitting president’s policies [1] [2]. Where sources diverge is over whether public admonitions to troops are appropriate political speech or a destabilizing intervention in military discipline — journalists, veterans, and legal experts present both views [10] [12]. For claims that a president has recently asked troops to carry out illegal orders, reporters should rely on concrete, documented instances and judicial findings — available sources do not mention such an adjudicated, contemporary example [6].