What illegal act was the military told to refuse?
Executive summary
A group of six Democratic lawmakers released a video on Nov. 18, 2025 urging U.S. service members and intelligence personnel that “you can” and “you must” refuse illegal orders; the statements did not identify a single specific order but were framed against recent U.S. strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels and other actions some officials question as lawful [1] [2]. Military law requires obeying lawful orders and disobeying unlawful ones under the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts‑Martial, and several outlets note that executing an illegal order can expose troops to prosecution [2] [3].
1. What the lawmakers actually said
The video, featuring Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Sen. Mark Kelly and four House Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds, warned of “threats to our Constitution” coming “from right here at home” and repeatedly said servicemembers and intelligence professionals “can” and “must” refuse illegal orders; it made no reference to a particular written order or a named, explicit illegal command [1] [4] [5]. Journalists and the lawmakers themselves framed it as a general reminder that the oath is to the Constitution rather than to any single leader [3].
2. Why people sought examples — and what the reporting shows
Critics, including some Republican Senators and the President, demanded concrete examples; reporting shows the lawmakers did not provide them in the clip, which fueled accusations of vagueness and politicization [6] [7]. News outlets note the timing tied the message to legal questions about recent U.S. military strikes on alleged drug‑carrying vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, actions that some commanders and allied officials have publicly questioned for their legality [2] [1].
3. The legal baseline in U.S. military law
Multiple sources cite Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts‑Martial: service members must obey lawful orders and have a duty to disobey unlawful ones; following an illegal order is not a defense and can lead to court‑martial or other prosecution [2] [3]. Legal commentators and military law guides referenced by reporting emphasize that manifestly illegal orders — for example, those directing murder of noncombatants — must be refused [8] [3].
4. The immediate government response and enforcement posture
The Pentagon opened a review into Sen. Mark Kelly’s participation and warned it could recall him to active duty for possible court‑martial proceedings; the FBI also sought interviews with the six lawmakers, according to reporting [4] [6] [9]. President Trump publicly called the video “seditious” and said those who made it “should be in jail,” language that spurred intense debate and further reporting on limits of speech by retired military personnel and members of Congress [7] [6].
5. Why observers disagree about the political effects
Supporters argue the video was a constitution‑centered civic reminder aimed at preventing unconstitutional domestic uses of force and unlawful military action, and point to military law that obliges refusal of illegal orders [10] [11]. Critics claim political actors should not “lecture” the force because ambiguous messaging can erode discipline and sow confusion in the chain of command; some former officers and commentators warn that outside political messaging risks undermining military cohesion [3] [9].
6. What the reporting does not say
Available sources do not mention any specific order that the lawmakers labeled illegal in the video — there is no citation in the coverage of a named directive, written order, or explicit instance where a commander told troops to carry out an identified illegal act [1] [4]. Similarly, reporting does not document that any active‑duty service member was prosecuted for following orders tied directly to this controversy in the immediate aftermath [2] [4].
7. Practical takeaways for understanding the controversy
The core dispute is legal vs. political framing: military law requires refusal of unlawful orders (a legal duty) while opponents view the lawmakers’ public messaging as a political intervention that could create operational confusion [2] [3]. Reporting ties the statements to contemporaneous questions about the legality of U.S. strikes in maritime drug‑interdiction operations, but the video itself stayed general — prompting government probes and polarized public reactio ns [2] [1] [7].
If you want, I can compile exact timestamps and transcripts of the video, or collate judicial and military‑law excerpts that define “manifestly illegal” orders for service members.