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.
What guidance do modern military training and rules of engagement provide to prevent compliance with unlawful commands?
Executive summary
Modern military doctrine and law require service members to obey lawful orders and to refuse clearly unlawful ones; U.S. law (UCMJ Article 92 and related guidance) and public discussion in 2025 reiterate that refusal of illegal orders is both permitted and required [1] [2]. At the same time, ROE/SROE and training are presented as guardrails—grounded in the law of armed conflict and commander directives—but reporters and analysts note tension between clarity of unlawful orders and recent cuts in some mandatory Law-of-War and ethics training that could affect service members’ ability to identify illegal commands [3] [4] [5].
1. How the rules frame the problem: ROE as guardrails, not criminal law
Rules of engagement (ROE) are commander-issued directives that define when, where, how and against whom force may be used; they operate as operational “guardrails” against unlawful conduct but are not themselves the same as international law or criminal statutes—the Geneva Conventions and domestic law remain the legal baseline [3] [6]. ROE and Standing ROE (SROE) provide templates and constraints—often emphasizing necessity, proportionality, and distinction—that commanders and legal advisors use to translate legal limits into battlefield decisions [4] [3].
2. Legal duty to refuse unlawful orders: UCMJ and military practice
U.S. service members are legally obliged to follow lawful orders and to refuse unlawful ones; Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice codifies this duty, and commentary and reporting in 2025 restate that troops who follow illegal orders risk prosecution while those who receive legal advice that an order is unlawful are not required to obey it [1] [2]. Civilian lawmakers and advocacy groups urged troops to reject illegal commands in a widely publicized video and news coverage in November 2025, prompting public debate about the thresholds for “illegal” and how troops should act [1] [7].
3. Training and doctrines intended to help identify illegality — and recent gaps
Military training, legal advice, and institutional materials (command handbooks, LOAC courses, ROE briefings) are designed to equip personnel to recognize violations—covering topics such as protecting civilians, not attacking hospitals or cultural sites, and the limits of self‑defense [8] [9] [4]. However, media reporting in 2025 documents that the Army gave commanders discretion to drop some mandatory modules, including Law of War and Code of Conduct training, which critics warn could reduce frontline familiarity with legal limits [5] [10].
4. Practical obstacles: speed, hierarchy and “manifestly unlawful” standard
Both legal scholars and military lawyers acknowledge practical difficulty: battlefield orders often arrive under stress and with imperfect information, and the law permits refusal only when orders are clearly or manifestly unlawful [11] [12]. Training that conditions rapid obedience can conflict with the need to question manifestly illegal commands, and some researchers recommend “reality-based” training to help soldiers recognize and disobey illegal orders while avoiding excessive indecision [11].
5. Institutional checks: lawyers, commanders and norms
The military relies on embedded legal advisers (judge advocates), command guidance, and doctrine to adjudicate legality before or during operations; public reporting in 2025 notes that military lawyers have sometimes raised internal concerns about operations and that removal of senior legal officials can affect these checks [7] [1]. At the same time, documents like the Commander's Legal Handbook emphasize preventing unlawful command influence, showing institutional attention to preserving lawful decision-making [13].
6. Political and public dimension: debate over urging refusal
When lawmakers publicly urged service members to refuse unlawful orders in late 2025, critics called for specifics and warned of politicizing the military, while proponents argued it reaffirmed constitutional duty—illustrating the tension between legal obligation and political debate over what counts as unlawful in real-world operations [7] [14]. Reporting notes both legal protections for refusing illegal commands and political pushback that can complicate messaging to troops [2] [14].
7. Bottom line and limitations of available reporting
Available sources show a clear legal framework: troops must obey lawful orders and may (and sometimes must) refuse unlawful ones, and ROE/SROE and LOAC training are the primary tools to translate law into practice [2] [3] [4]. Sources also describe current strains—training cuts, contested operations, and heated political debate—that could undermine service members’ ability to identify unlawful orders [5] [7]. Available sources do not mention specific new universal training requirements enacted in 2025 that guarantee every service member will be able to reliably identify illegal orders in all operational contexts; they instead show variation by service, mission, and command (not found in current reporting).