Are their retired generals who spoke about disobeying unlawful orders
Executive summary
Retired senior officers have publicly said that military personnel should refuse clearly unlawful orders: for example, retired Air Force General Michael Hayden told an HBO audience that “you are not required to follow an unlawful order,” a comment highlighted by the Constitution Center [1]. Multiple retired generals and senior military lawyers have repeated similar views in public venues and op-eds while legal commentators and former officers warn that refusing orders carries real legal and career risk and is constrained by doctrine about “manifestly” unlawful commands [2] [3] [4].
1. Who has said it — concrete examples from retired generals and senior officers
Public record shows named retired flag officers speaking to the point: Michael Hayden bluntly stated that service members are not required to follow unlawful orders on national television [1], and other retired generals have joined discussions raising the issue of whether officers would or should refuse unlawful presidential commands in the aftermath of litigation and Supreme Court rulings [3] [5]. Legal briefs and media coverage also record that former senior military leaders, represented in a conservative think tank brief, framed the duty not to carry out unlawful orders as an obligation of officers [6].
2. What they mean by “unlawful” and the limits they acknowledge
Those who urge refusal generally reference well‑established military law: orders that are “manifestly” or “patently” illegal — for example, directing the killing of noncombatants — must be refused, not simply disagreed with as unwise [2] [5]. Scholars and military manuals draw a narrow line: only orders that clearly violate the Constitution, federal law or the laws of war qualify as manifestly unlawful, and the standard is meant to prevent rank‑by‑rank subjectivity from fracturing command [2] [7].
3. The retired officers’ public role and the political context
Retired generals have not spoken in a vacuum; many comments have come amid political controversy over presidential statements and civilian calls to troops, prompting former officers to weigh in as public citizens and security experts [2] [3]. Commentators note an implicit agenda in some messaging: urging broad refusal without specifying what is manifestly unlawful can be interpreted as political advocacy that may risk confusion in the ranks, a critique voiced by former military lawyers and commentators [8].
4. Legal and practical risks highlighted by critics and practitioners
While retired generals and other senior figures assert a duty to refuse unlawful commands, military lawyers and defense attorneys warn that disobeying an order can expose service members to court‑martial, administrative retaliation or worse unless the illegality is clear on its face; practical guidance counsels seeking legal advice where possible and reserving disobedience for manifestly illegal acts [4] [9]. Recent commentary after Supreme Court decisions has also introduced uncertainty about whether presidential immunity arguments could complicate the downstream protections for those who refuse orders [3].
5. The debate’s unresolved tensions and where retired generals fit
Retired generals occupy a hybrid role: their views carry operational credibility and influence civic debate, and several have publicly endorsed the principle that unlawful orders should not be obeyed [1] [5]. At the same time, legal experts and some former officers caution that generalized public exhortations to “refuse unlawful orders” risk oversimplifying a nuanced legal regime that places particular burdens and distinctions on officers versus enlisted personnel — a point emphasized in law‑of‑war and UCMJ analyses [10] [7].