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 obligations do U.S. service members have to refuse manifestly unlawful orders and what protections exist for them?
Executive summary
U.S. service members are legally required to obey lawful orders and to refuse orders that are “manifestly” or “patently” unlawful — a narrow standard that courts and military lawyers say must be obvious to a person of ordinary understanding (see e.g., Article 92 and related commentary) [1] [2]. Officials and analysts warn that disobeying an order carries career and criminal risk unless the illegality is clear, while advocates and some lawmakers have publicly urged troops to refuse illegal commands and point to duties under the Constitution and Geneva Convention standards [3] [4] [5].
1. The legal duty: refuse manifestly unlawful orders
Military law and international norms require subordinates not to follow orders that are unlawful; the bar commonly cited is that an order must be “manifestly” or “patently” illegal — so obvious that a person of ordinary sense would recognize it as a crime on its face [1] [5]. That standard is reflected in U.S. practice and in ICRC interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, which say a subordinate is criminally responsible if they knew or should have known the ordered act was unlawful [5].
2. The practical risk of refusal: narrow exception, big consequences
Multiple outlets and former military lawyers emphasize the practical danger: refusal is permitted only in narrow circumstances, and troops who disobey orders that are not clearly illegal risk court-martial, career punishment or other sanction — obedience that turns out to be unlawful does not immunize the actor in some prosecutions, and conversely refusal without clear illegality can itself be punished under the UCMJ [1] [6] [7].
3. What “manifestly unlawful” means in practice
Reporting and legal commentary stress that the phrase requires obvious illegality — examples historically include orders to commit war crimes or direct, criminal violence against protected civilians — but many real-world cases involve legal gray zones where legal advice or superior rulings matter. Analysts warn that most operational orders will not meet the high “manifest” threshold, leaving service members to seek legal counsel when in doubt [1] [7] [8].
4. Sources of protection and guidance inside the system
When service members suspect an order is unlawful, the standard advice in reporting is to seek legal advice up the chain or from military counsel and to use established processes rather than unilateral refusal when possible; some experts say if counsel or an authoritative legal opinion finds an order unlawful, refusal is protected [8] [6]. News coverage also notes that internal legal opinions (e.g., from command JAGs or DoD legal offices) have played decisive roles in contested cases [2] [9].
5. International law and criminal liability for following unlawful orders
Commentary underscores that international tribunals and treaty law reject “I was just following orders” as a blanket defense: service members who carry out manifestly unlawful acts can face liability domestically and internationally [7] [5]. That principle underpins warnings that obedience offers no protection when an order clearly violates the law of armed conflict or fundamental rights [1].
6. Political debate and messaging to troops
In November 2025 several Democratic lawmakers released a video urging service members to refuse illegal orders; that prompted strong pushback from the administration and critics who warned such advice could encourage improper disobedience [10] [3]. Presidential and partisan reactions highlighted a political dimension: some leaders framed the guidance as necessary to uphold the Constitution, while others said it risked undermining discipline and could be “seditious” or dangerous [4] [3].
7. Where reporting disagrees or leaves questions open
Sources agree on the narrow legal standard but differ in emphasis: advocates and some legal commentators stress the duty and moral necessity to refuse clearly illegal orders, while commentators and former military lawyers emphasize the high risk of punishment for mistaken or subjective refusals and urge use of legal channels [11] [1]. Available sources do not mention specific step‑by‑step protections that automatically shield a service member who refuses before a formal legal ruling declares the order unlawful — in other words, automatic immunity for preemptive refusals is not documented in the cited reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. Practical takeaways for service members and the public
The legal rule is firm: disobey manifestly illegal orders; the operational reality is hazardous: the standard is narrow, and consequences for refusal can be severe unless the illegality is clear or confirmed through legal channels. Service members are advised by experts to seek immediate legal advice when in doubt rather than rely on political messaging alone [1] [8] [6].
Limitations: this summary uses news reports, legal commentary and advocacy materials assembled in recent coverage; it does not substitute for legal counsel, and specific protections or outcomes can depend on the exact facts and formal legal opinions or rulings not reproduced in these sources [7] [5].