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.
Were any military personnel prosecuted or disciplined for following alleged illegal orders between 2017 and 2021?
Executive summary
Available reporting and legal commentary establish that U.S. military law treats following an unlawful order as potentially criminal and that service members have a duty to refuse “patently” or clearly illegal commands; however, the sources provided do not list specific prosecutions or disciplinary actions between 2017 and 2021 for following alleged illegal orders (available sources do not mention specific prosecutions 2017–2021) [1] [2].
1. The rule: disobey manifestly illegal orders — not a blanket right
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Manual for Courts‑Martial, an order is presumed lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, U.S. law, or beyond the authority of the issuer; that presumption does not apply to “patently” or manifestly illegal orders [2] [1]. Legal commentators and military law guides repeatedly stress that obedience is required for lawful orders, while follow‑through on criminal orders can expose individual service members to prosecution [3] [4].
2. The on‑the‑ground dilemma: training, conditioning and legal complexity
Multiple analyses note a practical tension: troops are trained to obey and typically lack detailed legal training to assess constitutional or international‑law nuances in the moment, so the duty to disobey applies narrowly to orders that are clearly unlawful on their face — e.g., orders to shoot unarmed civilians or otherwise commit crimes [5] [6]. Commentators warn that urging broad disobedience without examples can mislead service members and politicize military duty [3].
3. Consequences for following illegal orders — law and commentary
Authors and legal primers emphasize that “I was only following orders” is not a safe legal defense: following an unlawful order can result in court‑martial, imprisonment, or other severe penalties, and in extreme cases international prosecution has been discussed in academic commentary [4] [6]. The Manual and case law leave the ultimate determination of lawfulness to military judges, which often means adjudication follows a refusal or after the allegedly unlawful action occurred [2] [1].
4. Who decides lawfulness — officers vs. enlisted responsibilities
Analysts point out structural differences in obligations: officers are expected to ensure orders they issue or pass along are lawful, while enlisted personnel swear to obey lawful orders but still must refuse patently illegal directives; public debate sometimes blurs these roles [7]. Some forum and Q&A commentary reiterates that military personnel can still face prosecution even if they claim they were following higher authority, underscoring individual accountability [8] [9].
5. Political context and messaging: lawmakers’ video and ensuing debate
In 2025 a group of Democratic veterans in Congress released a viral video urging troops to “refuse illegal orders”; conservative commentators criticized the message as potentially encouraging defiance of the president — analysts on both sides agreed the legal principle is narrow and context‑dependent, and critics noted the video lacked concrete examples of unlawful orders [10] [3]. Newsweek and other outlets framed the lawmakers’ message as legally accurate but potentially politically charged [11] [3].
6. What the supplied sources do and do not say about prosecutions 2017–2021
The materials supplied explain the legal framework and report debate about refusing unlawful orders, and they document theoretical and historical examples of illegal‑order litigation and admonitions [1] [12]. They do not, however, provide reporting, case names, or disciplinary records showing that specific military personnel were prosecuted or disciplined between 2017 and 2021 for following alleged illegal orders; therefore, specific claims about prosecutions or discipline in that interval cannot be confirmed from these sources (available sources do not mention specific prosecutions 2017–2021) [2] [1].
7. How to verify whether prosecutions occurred (next steps)
To answer the question definitively would require consulting military justice records, public court‑martial dockets, Department of Defense announcements, or investigative reporting covering 2017–2021. The supplied sources are legal primers, opinion pieces, FAQs and commentary — useful for context but not a database of case outcomes [2] [1].
Limitations: This briefing relies solely on the set of documents you provided. Those documents consistently explain legal principles and debates but do not inventory or name court‑martial cases or administrative punishments from 2017–2021; therefore I cannot assert either that prosecutions occurred or did not occur in that period without additional sources (available sources do not mention specific prosecutions 2017–2021) [2] [1].