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.
Historical examples of military personnel refusing orders?
Executive summary
Refusals of military orders happen across history in two broad categories: lawful disobedience of manifestly illegal orders (e.g., orders to target civilians) and acts of insubordination or political dissent that challenge the chain of command. Contemporary U.S. debate has intensified after six Democratic lawmakers urged service members to “refuse illegal orders,” which press outlets report amid concerns about recent strikes that killed at least 83 people and legal questions under the UCMJ and Posse Comitatus [1] [2] [3].
1. Historic patterns: illegal orders vs. insubordination
Historians and legal scholars distinguish between refusing manifestly illegal orders (a legal duty under military and international law) and disobeying lawful orders or expressing public dissent, which is normally charged as insubordination; both categories recur in military history and draw very different legal consequences [4] [5]. Sources note that intentionally targeting civilians is the paradigmatic illegal order that soldiers are expected to refuse; commentators point to Nuremberg-era precedents and modern law reinforcing that following illegal orders is not a defense [6] [4].
2. Well-known historical examples that courts and commentators cite
Reporting and legal discussion often use high-profile cases to illustrate the difference: prosecutions for war crimes where subordinates claimed “just following orders” were rejected at Nuremberg and in later practice, while other episodes of public defiance—such as senior officers going to the press—have been treated as insubordination and punished [6] [7]. Military historians also highlight episodes where senior commanders publicly broke with civilian or military leadership and faced courts-martial or removal for insubordination [7].
3. Modern U.S. law: duty to refuse unlawful orders and the high bar for “manifestly unlawful”
Contemporary legal guides and defense firms say U.S. service members have a right—and in some cases a duty—to refuse unlawful orders, but stress that orders are presumptively lawful and the threshold for refusal is high: a servicemember must show the order is manifestly unlawful, or risk discipline under Article 92 of the UCMJ [8] [4] [9]. Several legal pieces emphasize that hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences even when later justified, placing personnel in a fraught legal and ethical position [4].
4. Recent political trigger: lawmakers’ video and the operational context
In November 2025, six Democratic lawmakers—many with military or intelligence backgrounds—released a short video urging current servicemembers and intelligence professionals to “refuse illegal orders,” framing the appeal around alleged threats to the Constitution and citing strikes that have killed at least 83 people; national outlets covered strong pushback from some Republicans who demanded concrete examples [1] [10] [3]. The Hill and CNN explain the lawmakers’ concern arose amid debate over whether certain strikes and domestic deployments could be unlawful under statutes like the Posse Comitatus Act [2] [3].
5. Surveys and attitudes inside the force
Survey research reported in Military.com and The Conversation suggests many U.S. service members understand the legal duty to disobey illegal orders: a university-backed poll found roughly four out of five troops grasp the distinction and the personal legal risks of following illegal commands [11] [12]. Advocacy groups and legal commentators caution, however, that understanding does not eliminate the practical and career risks of refusing orders in real time [4].
6. Competing viewpoints and political framing
News outlets and partisan media frame the same events very differently: outlets sympathetic to the lawmakers present a legal-duty framing, while conservative outlets and commentators portray the message as political and warn it could sow confusion or encourage unlawful refusal—some argue lawmakers should provide specific examples rather than a general appeal [10] [13] [3]. Legal sources emphasize the institutional interest in maintaining the chain of command even while recognizing narrow exceptions for manifestly illegal orders [4] [6].
7. What the sources do not settle or mention
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of all historical instances where individual U.S. enlisted personnel refused orders without later prosecution, nor do they offer a definitive legal checklist servicemembers can apply in-the-moment to determine “manifestly unlawful” status beyond the general standards cited (not found in current reporting). Sources also do not report a uniform military policy change in response to the November 2025 video; rather, coverage shows debate and legal analysis continuing [1] [2].
8. Practical takeaways for readers
Legal commentary and historical reporting converge on two practical points: [14] U.S. military law recognizes a duty to refuse clearly illegal orders—especially orders to commit crimes such as targeting civilians—but the legal threshold for refusal is high [4] [6]; [15] public calls by politicians to refuse orders are politically charged and have prompted both support and critique from across the spectrum, intensifying debate rather than producing new legal clarity [1] [10] [3].