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.
How have historical cases shaped current military policies on unlawful orders?
Executive summary
Historical cases and long-standing military law have shaped a clear rule: service members must obey lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones, with criminal liability possible for both following manifestly illegal orders and for disobeying lawful commands [1] [2]. Recent public debate—sparked by a Nov. 18, 2025 video from six Democratic lawmakers urging troops to “refuse illegal orders”—has revived those legal and historical touchpoints and produced sharp political disagreement about how those rules operate in practice [3] [4] [5].
1. How past jurisprudence set the basic rule: obey lawful orders, refuse unlawful orders
Military law and precedent codify a distinction between lawful and unlawful orders. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) obliges obedience to lawful orders but bars compliance with unlawful commands; historical interpretation — echoed in reporting and legal summaries — makes clear that following an unlawful order can be criminal, just as refusing a lawful order may itself be punishable [1] [2]. International norms, such as Geneva Conventions’ principles cited by commentators, reinforce that “manifestly unlawful” acts (e.g., clear war crimes) cannot be excused by superior orders [1].
2. Why the distinction matters operationally: clarity, discipline and legal risk
Commentators and military outlets stress that the obedience/refusal rule preserves discipline while protecting troops from criminal liability, but it relies on judgments that are not always obvious on the spot; executing a clearly criminal act exposes troops to prosecution, whereas rejecting an order that is actually lawful risks disciplinary action [2] [4]. Military.com and similar outlets argue that the law is correct but context-dependent, and messaging that lacks concrete examples can create ambiguity that undermines cohesion and command [2].
3. Recent events that pushed this issue back into public view
A short video by six Democratic lawmakers on Nov. 18, 2025 telling military and intelligence personnel “you can refuse illegal orders” brought this legal framework into the political foreground; supporters framed it as a reminder of constitutional obligations, while critics called the message confusing or politically charged [3] [6]. The episode produced intense reactions from the White House and President Trump, who called the lawmakers’ action “seditious,” a charge extensively reported and debated [5] [7].
4. Competing perspectives: constitutional guardianship versus risks of politicization
Supporters of the lawmakers’ message contend that reminding troops of the duty to obey the Constitution and to refuse illegal commands is strictly a legal and civic obligation, rooted in historical practice and the oath service members take [3] [4]. Critics — including some military commentators quoted in reporting — warn that broad exhortations without legal context risk blurring lines between lawful orders and objections motivated by politics, potentially harming unit cohesion and operational effectiveness [2] [8].
5. Guidance and resources available to service members today
Multiple contemporary sources — from military law FAQs to articles in mainstream outlets — highlight that service members have formal channels and legal standards for assessing orders, and that organizations (including legal task forces) publish guidance about refusing illegal orders and about protections and risks involved [9] [10]. Reporting also notes military leadership and legal advisors sometimes publicly opine on specific operations when questions of lawfulness arise, indicating institutional avenues exist for review and redress [4].
6. Limits of current reporting and what is not yet addressed
Available sources document the legal rules, the recent political episode, and expert commentary, but they do not provide a comprehensive catalogue of historical court-martial cases that shaped modern doctrine here, nor do they offer detailed, step-by-step criteria troops should apply in every field scenario — reporting instead emphasizes high-level standards and the operational difficulty of instant legal judgments [1] [2]. For granular legal advice or case law histories, the publicly available summaries cited recommend consulting military legal counsel or specialized legal compilations [9] [10].
7. Takeaway for policymakers and the public
The historical and legal foundations leave no doubt that unlawful orders must not be executed and that troops can be punished for refusing lawful orders — a dual risk that demands careful, context-rich communication when civilians or lawmakers address the armed forces. News outlets and legal commentators agree that reminders of the duty to refuse illegal orders are defensible legally, but they also stress that vague public messaging invites politicization and operational confusion [2] [3].