Six Democratic lawmakers who previously served in the military or intelligence community have placed a long-ignored principle of U.S. military law back at the center of national debate: the duty to refuse illegal orders. Their message comes as the Trump administration expands unlawful military operations abroad, deploys National Guard units to U.S. cities, ignores court rulings, and threatens political opponents with charges of sedition.
In a 90-second video organized by Sen. Elissa Slotkin, the lawmakers speak directly to active service members. “Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” they say. “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
The video features Slotkin alongside Sen. Mark Kelly and Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow. All previously served in the armed forces or in intelligence roles. Their decision to address troops directly reflects deepening alarm within Congress over the administration’s actions, including the unlawful killing of people in small boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific and the deployment of troops to domestic operations without clear legal authority.
Their message immediately provoked an extraordinary response from Donald Trump.
“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in the first of several posts. In another, he wrote: “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.” He followed with: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and reposted a comment reading: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”
The lawmakers issued a joint response: “What’s most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.”
Their warning is not speculative. Under the international and domestic laws that govern the U.S. armed forces, troops may not carry out orders that are illegal. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not define the word “lawful,” but the Manual for Courts-Martial states that an order is lawful “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The manual also makes clear that “this inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Under the Rules for Courts-Martial, acting “pursuant to orders” is a defense only when the orders were not known to be unlawful and would not have been recognized as unlawful “by a person of ordinary sense and understanding.”
Legal experts note that the Trump administration has repeatedly given orders that fall squarely in the category of illegality. The administration’s use of military forces to detain or deport immigrants, for example, raises violations of the Convention Against Torture. The deployment of federal troops against protestors without the presence of an actual insurrection conflicts with the Posse Comitatus Act. And as legal scholar Marjorie Cohn has written, the strikes against small boats in foreign waters constitute “unlawful extrajudicial killings.”
A senior judge advocate general reportedly raised these concerns internally. According to NBC, a top military lawyer for the command overseeing the maritime strikes warned in August that the operations were unlawful and could expose service members to legal jeopardy. His warnings were dismissed by more senior officials.
Amid these concerns, the GI Rights Hotline has seen an uptick in calls from service members seeking guidance on potentially illegal orders, including participation in immigration raids. Organizations such as the GI Rights Hotline, the Center on Conscience and War, and the Military Law Task Force regularly help troops evaluate whether an order is unlawful and decide on next steps.
The White House has responded not by addressing the legality of the orders, but by attacking the lawmakers who reminded service members of their rights. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that “all orders” from Trump should be “presumed to be legal by our service members.” She added, “All orders, lawful orders are presumed to be legal by our service members. You can’t have a functioning military if there is disorder and chaos within the ranks. And that’s what these Democrat members were encouraging. It’s very clear.” Leavitt also said none of the lawmakers “can point to a single illegal order that this administration has given down, because it does not exist.”
The White House also endorsed the Department of Defense investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly for alleged misconduct. Because retired officers remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Kelly could theoretically be recalled to active duty for a court-martial.
Kelly and the other lawmakers maintain that their message is simply a restatement of the law. “You can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly said in the video. “We need you to stand up for our laws. Our Constitution. And who we are as Americans.”
The principle they invoked has deep historical roots. The rejection of the so-called “superior orders” defense at Nuremberg established that following orders cannot excuse war crimes. U.S. case law has reiterated that troops must refuse illegal orders, even at personal risk.
The Vietnam War era provides several such examples. In 1968, Lt. William Calley led troops into My Lai, where they massacred hundreds of civilians. Calley argued he was following Capt. Ernest Medina’s orders, but the court-martial rejected his defense. He was convicted of the premeditated murder of “not less than” 22 Vietnamese civilians.
In 1965, Dr. Howard Levy refused to train Special Forces aidmen because he believed the U.S. was committing war crimes in Vietnam. He was convicted and sentenced to hard labor, but his case remains a reference point in debates over medical ethics and wartime complicity.
During the Iraq War, Lt. Ehren Watada declared, “The war in Iraq is in fact illegal. It is my obligation and my duty to refuse any orders to participate in this war.” His court-martial ended in a mistrial, and double jeopardy protections prevented the Army from retrying him. He was allowed to resign rather than serve prison time.
Navy Petty Officer Pablo Paredes refused to board a ship transporting Marines to Iraq, saying, “I am guilty of believing this war is illegal. I am guilty of believing war in all forms is immoral and useless.” A military judge found him guilty of missing ship movement but rejected the prosecution’s harsher recommendations and sentenced him to restriction, hard labor, and reduction in rank, without confinement.
These cases illustrate the legal and moral landscape facing today’s service members. When orders approach or cross the line of illegality, troops must navigate the risk of refusing orders that are later deemed legal against the greater risk of participating in actions that violate domestic or international law.
Veterans For Peace issued a statement following the lawmakers’ video: “We call on all veterans to stand with these members of Congress and amplify their message so that Airmen, Marines, Seamen, and Army troops know that if they ever face the difficult challenge of refusing an illegal order, they are carrying out their oath to defend the Constitution by following the law.”
The escalating confrontation between Congress and the White House underscores how much is at stake for U.S. democratic governance. Trump’s threats of hanging and sedition charges against sitting lawmakers, combined with the administration’s long pattern of extrajudicial actions, raise profound questions about the boundaries of presidential authority.
For service members, the stakes are immediate. They face the possibility of prosecution or imprisonment for disobeying an order later ruled lawful, but they also face the possibility of criminal liability if they follow an order later found to be illegal. The lawmakers’ message reflects that reality: the law requires not just obedience to the chain of command, but independent judgment when the Constitution is at risk.
“You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” the lawmakers said. Their warning, grounded in decades of legal precedent, now confronts a president whose response is to demand punishment, imprisonment, or worse.
COMMENTS