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 and training did the U.S. military provide from 2017–2021 on refusing illegal orders and reporting misconduct?
Executive summary
Between 2017–2021, available reporting and guidance emphasizes that U.S. service members are legally required to obey lawful orders and to refuse clearly unlawful ones, but training and practical guidance on when to refuse or how to report misconduct was uneven and often limited to existing legal channels such as Inspector General complaints, the DoD Hotline, and service-specific reporting systems (e.g., Navy Misconduct Reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Commentators and advocacy groups argue troops receive little training in the legal nuances that distinguish lawful from unlawful orders, and several analyses called for expanded legal education and hypothetical training for commanders and judge advocates after 2020 events that raised questions about domestic use of forces [4] [5].
1. Legal baseline: “Obey lawful orders; refuse unlawful ones”
U.S. military law and legal experts cited in reporting make a clear baseline: service members are required to obey lawful orders and must refuse orders that are clearly unlawful — for example, orders directing the commission of crimes or obvious violations of the Constitution or law [1] [6]. Several attorney- and news-oriented sources repeat that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and military legal doctrine place that duty on servicemembers, while recognizing that the practical judgment call can be difficult in grey cases [1] [6].
2. Practical training shortfalls documented by scholars and reporters
Multiple analyses and surveys found that troops are often not trained in the legal nuances needed to make split-second decisions about illegality; troops are “conditioned to obey” and receive relatively little instruction on international law or complex domestic-authority scenarios, producing a gap between the legal duty and operational reality [5] [7]. JustSecurity specifically urged armed forces to review and expand training for judge advocates and commanders and to use hypotheticals about domestic unrest and use of authorities like the Insurrection Act — an explicit call tied to developments in 2020 [4].
3. Reporting options that existed and were reinforced
If service members chose not to refuse an order or witnessed misconduct, the sources outline formal reporting channels in place: Inspector General complaint systems, the Department of Defense Hotline for fraud/waste/abuse, service-specific misconduct reporting portals (for example, MyNavyHR), and congressional inquiries are noted as established avenues [8] [2] [3]. Advocacy materials reiterate those routes and also urge consultation with civilian counsel when feasible [8].
4. Newer policy steps that shaped reporting culture (Safe‑to‑Report)
While your time window ends in 2021, reporting during and after that period was affected by statutory and DoD policy changes focused on encouraging reporting of sexual assault and reducing punishment for “minor collateral misconduct.” The Safe‑To‑Report policy (driven by the FY2021 NDAA) and subsequent service guidance were intended to lower barriers to reporting certain offenses by protecting reporting victims from disciplinary actions for some related minor misconduct [9] [10] [11]. Those reforms demonstrate a limited but concrete attempt to change incentives around reporting misconduct.
5. Political messaging complicated the message to troops
In late‑period coverage, elected officials publicly urged service members to “refuse illegal orders” in a viral video; news outlets and military commentators noted the message was legally accurate in general terms but criticized it for lacking concrete examples and for mixing legal guidance with political signaling — which can create confusion among troops about when refusal is appropriate [12] [13] [14]. Military.com said the lawmakers “did not identify any specific order they believed might be unlawful,” warning that context matters [13].
6. Attorneys’ caution and real-world risk of refusing orders
Legal advice reproduced in practitioner pieces stresses the high stakes: refusal of an order that turns out to be lawful can carry severe career or criminal consequences, and attorneys typically advise consulting a judge advocate or civilian counsel unless the order is “patently illegal” on its face (e.g., shoot unarmed civilians) [15] [6]. That tension — duty to refuse unlawful orders versus heavy penalties for disobedience — underpins calls for clearer training and more accessible legal advice within units [15].
7. What reporting guidance does not show (limitations of available sources)
Available sources in this dataset do not provide a comprehensive, service‑by‑service curriculum or a unified DoD training directive issued across 2017–2021 specifically teaching frontline troops how to evaluate and refuse illegal orders in non‑obvious circumstances; rather, the public record compiled here shows legal standards, reporting channels, reform efforts around sexual assault reporting, academic critiques, and political messaging (not found in current reporting). Where sources critique training gaps, they recommend expanded scenario‑based education for commanders and judge advocates [4] [5].
Conclusion: The law and formal reporting channels were clear and present, but reporting and scholarship from the period show significant gaps in practical training and guidance for service members facing ambiguous or high‑pressure orders — a shortcoming many experts said should be addressed by expanded, scenario‑based legal training and clearer internal advice pathways [4] [5] [15].