Your fact-checks will appear here
American legal drama television series (1995-2005)
Pete Hegseth’s service record in the post-9/11 wars shows three overseas deployments: security duties at Guantánamo Bay, infantry leadership in Iraq (platoon leader and later civil‑military operations...
Article 92 of the UCMJ governs failure to obey orders and regulations and is the principal statute used when a service member is accused of disobeying a lawful order (10 U.S.C. §892) . For disobedienc...
Service members are legally required to obey lawful orders but the UCMJ recognizes limits: orders that are “manifestly unlawful” provide a defense against charges under Article 90 (willfully disobeyin...
U.S. military law presumes orders are lawful, but Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes failure to obey a lawful order punishable while also defining lawfulness as conformity...
U.S. military law treats orders as presumptively lawful but imposes a duty to disobey those that are “patently illegal” — namely orders that violate the Constitution, federal law, military regulations...
Service members are legally required to obey lawful orders and to refuse patently unlawful ones; Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Manual for Courts‑Martial frame that ...
When a service member suspects an order is unlawful, the Manual for Courts‑Martial (MCM) frames the legal test and procedures that govern response: an order is presumed lawful unless it conflicts with...
Pete Hegseth served multiple deployments in Iraq with the Minnesota Army National Guard and has been publicly credited with awards including two Bronze Star Medals and a Combat Infantryman Badge; publ...
The Department of Defense investigates suspected inflated or false military decorations through rules set out in DoDI 1348.33 and the DoD Manuals (Volumes 1–4), which require award recommendations be ...
Statutory protections in the U.S. military—centered on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)—create formal legal rules for criminal accountability, pretrial procedures and limits on commanding o...
Historical U.S. prosecutions for following or issuing unlawful orders include high-profile cases such as Lt. William L. Calley Jr. (My Lai), which set a precedent that “just following orders” is not a...
U.S. military law treats orders as presumptively lawful but makes a narrow exception for "patently" or "manifestly" illegal commands — those that plainly violate the Constitution, federal criminal law...
Service members are legally required to obey lawful orders and to refuse manifestly unlawful ones; the Manual for Courts‑Martial and Article 92 of the UCMJ treat orders as presumptively lawful but mak...
U.S. military law treats orders as presumptively lawful but requires service members to refuse those that are “manifestly unlawful” — a standard without a single statutory definition and usually decid...
Service members are legally required to obey lawful orders and may be punished under Article 92 of the UCMJ for failing to do so, while they also bear a duty to refuse clearly unlawful orders such as ...
Military law across U.S. services draws a consistent line: service members are required to obey lawful orders and must refuse unlawful orders — typically defined as orders that violate the Constitutio...
The law requires service members to obey lawful orders but not manifestly illegal ones; courts and military practice set a high bar for what counts as “manifestly illegal,” and refusing such an order ...
A “lawful order” from the President as Commander in Chief is legally presumed valid unless it conflicts with the Constitution, federal law, or is a patently illegal command (for example, one ordering ...
Military law draws a sharp line: servicemembers must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful ones, but “following orders” is not an automatic defense — the Nuremberg-style defense was rejected post‑WW...