What training methods do armed forces use to teach lawful disobedience and refusal skills?
Executive summary
Military policy requires service members to obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful ones, but training and culture make refusal complicated: surveys cited show most troops recognize the duty to refuse illegal orders while many report limited practical training on laws of war and human rights [1] [2]. Public debate in November 2025 — including a video by six Democratic lawmakers urging troops to “refuse illegal orders” — has sharpened attention on how troops are taught (and whether that teaching is sufficient), with commentators and officials disagreeing about the clarity and risks of such guidance [3] [4] [5].
1. Legal framework versus cultural reality
U.S. military law and the Manual for Courts‑Martial state that service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful ones; unlawful orders include clear violations of the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, or international human‑rights norms [2]. Yet military culture emphasizes obedience and chain‑of‑command discipline, and that culture means the decision to refuse an order often carries legal and career risks — executing an unlawful order can produce criminal liability, while refusing a lawful order can itself be punishable [4] [2].
2. What troops say they know — and what they’re taught
Surveyed service members overwhelmingly acknowledge a duty to refuse illegal orders; one poll found about four in five troops understand that responsibility [1]. However, reporting shows many troops receive relatively little concrete training in the laws of war and human‑rights law, which makes distinguishing “obviously unlawful” orders from ambiguous or lawful ones difficult in real time [1]. Available sources do not provide a detailed inventory of specific classroom or field exercises used across services.
3. Training approaches implied by reporting
The sources indicate the gap is less about legal doctrine (which exists in the UCMJ and manuals) and more about practical education: troops need scenario‑based instruction, reinforcement of legal norms, and command climate that permits lawful challenge — but the reporting emphasizes that these elements are uneven and often limited [1] [2]. The Conversation piece and syndicated coverage argue service members want clearer guidance grounded in the Constitution and international law [3] [6].
4. Public messaging as informal “training” and its controversy
A November 2025 video by six Democratic lawmakers telling troops “You can refuse illegal orders” sparked debate: supporters say it reminds service members of their oath to the Constitution; critics and some military commentators say such messages are vague and could create confusion or encourage refusal of orders that are presumed lawful, exposing troops to disciplinary risk [3] [4] [5]. The disagreement highlights how political speech can function as informal instruction while raising questions about utility and unintended consequences [4] [5].
5. Legal presumption and the operational problem
Commentators stress that, under military law, orders are presumed lawful when issued by proper authority and related to duty; that presumption means a service member who refuses an order may later need to prove its illegality in a court‑martial — a heavy burden in operational settings [5] [4]. This creates a practical training need: teaching recognition of manifestly illegal acts (e.g., targeting civilians) and safe procedures for challenging orders rather than relying on abstract exhortations.
6. Where reporting identifies gaps and solutions
Reporting and analysis in the supplied sources point to two recurring themes: troops understand the principle but lack detailed, scenario‑based instruction; and successful refusal depends on command climate and institutional support, not just legal memoranda [1] [2]. Military commentators urge clearer, concrete guidance and better education in the laws of armed conflict to reduce moral‑legal quandaries in the field [1].
7. Competing perspectives and political context
Media pieces and opinion columns differ sharply: some frames treat congressional reminders as necessary constitutional guardrails [3], while others argue such public exhortations are ill‑advised and legally risky for service members [5] [4]. The reporting makes clear this debate is entangled with contemporary political conflicts and that partisan or institutional agendas shape how the question of “teaching refusal” is presented [7] [8].
Limitations: available sources focus on U.S. reporting and opinion from mid–late 2025 and discuss surveys, legal norms, and public controversy; they do not provide a comprehensive list of formal curricula, specific training syllabi, or comparable practices in other countries — those items are not found in current reporting [1] [2].