[[link removed]]

THE FACTS ABOUT THE MILITARY DISOBEYING ILLEGAL ORDERS  
[[link removed]]


 

Mark Hertling
November 21, 2025
The xxxxxx
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The message reminding military personnel that they must not obey
illegal orders ricocheted through the political world like a rifle
shot. In fact, there are two military oaths, and the one for officers
places a special responsibility on them. _

The 2006 graduating class at West Point take an Oath , credit:
Shealah Craighead | The White House

 

WHEN SIX MEMBERS OF CONGRESS released a short video on Tuesday
emphatically reminding military personnel1
[[link removed]]
that they must not obey illegal orders, the message ricocheted through
the political world and the media like a rifle shot. Reactions split
along predictable lines. Some saw the video as a necessary civic
reminder in a volatile moment. Others attacked it as inappropriate
political rhetoric directed at the armed forces. Still others lied
about what was said, or mocked the message as condescending. As the
controversy escalated, the lawmakers who appeared in the video began
receiving death threats, while the president himself
suggested—astonishingly—that their message constituted “sedition
[[link removed]]” and that they
should be imprisoned
[[link removed]] or
executed
[[link removed]].

I want to address a fundamental point revealed by the video and the
debate surrounding it: Most Americans do not understand what is in the
oaths sworn by our service members. Confusion about that, combined
with an understandable desire to keep the military a nonpartisan
institution, fuels both the alarm that motivated the video’s
creation and the backlash against the video. A clearer understanding
on this subject will help reveal the aspects of our constitutional
structure that protect the nation from unlawful uses of the military.

Here’s the truth, learned on the first day of service by every
enlisted soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian, and coast
guardsman, and learned but sometimes not recognized by the young
officers who first take the oath: There is not one military oath.
There are two. And the differences between them explain exactly who is
responsible for refusing illegal orders, why the system was designed
that way, and what it means for this moment.

One reason the debate keeps going sideways is that the public keeps
talking about “the military” as if it were a single,
undifferentiated mass of people with identical obligations. It
isn’t. The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two
different oaths—one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers.
That structure is not bureaucratic trivia; it is grounded on the
bedrock American civil–military relations. Ignoring it leads to the
misleading assumption that everyone in uniform bears equal
responsibility when confronted with an unlawful command.

They don’t. And that distinction matters.

Enlisted members swear
[[link removed]]
to support and defend the Constitution, and to “obey the orders of
the President of the United States and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice.” And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service
member’s obligation is to obey “lawful” orders
[[link removed]],
and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful
order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in
obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level
up.

Which brings us to the officer oath
[[link removed]]—shorter
in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to “support and
defend” the Constitution; to “bear true faith and allegiance” to
it; and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their
office. They also affirm that they “take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What they do
_not_ swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to
obey the president and the officers above them.

That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate
legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders
intended. They are expected—by law, by professional ethic, and by
centuries of tradition—to exercise independent judgment when
presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to
refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational.
It is their job.

When the members of Congress in their video urge what seems to be the
entire military not to follow illegal orders, they may unintentionally
blur the very lines that keep the system functioning. Enlisted
personnel obey lawful orders; officers ensure the orders that reach
them are lawful. The real constitutional failsafe is not a general
broadcast to every rank. It is the officer corps, obligated by oath to
the Constitution alone.

This matters in a moment when Americans are hearing loud claims about
using the military to solve political disputes, intervene in
elections, or take actions beyond statutory authority. People are
right to worry. But they should also understand the guardrails already
in place. The military has been here before—they have already, at
times in our history, faced unlawful pressure, political manipulation,
or attempts to turn the armed forces into a tool of personal power.

Also worth remembering: No one in the American military swears
allegiance to any individual. The oaths are not pledges of loyalty to
a party, a personality, or a political movement. Loyalty is pledged to
the Constitution—and officers further take that obligation
“without mental reservation,” knowing full well it may someday
require them to stand with courage between unlawful authority and the
people they serve.

So while pundits and politicians continue fighting over the optics of
the lawmakers’ video, the core reality remains: The safeguards are
already built into the structure. The oaths already distribute
responsibility. The law already forbids what some fear. And the
officer corps already knows that they bear the constitutional duty to
ensure that unlawful orders never reach the young men and women who
follow them, and who, in effect, they also serve.

This is not a moment for panic. It is a moment for clarity.

If Americans understood the difference between the two oaths—one
grounded in obedience, the other grounded in constitutional
discernment—they would see that the republic’s defenses against
unlawful orders are not theoretical. They exist. They function. They
don’t depend on the whims of political actors on either side of the
aisle, but on the integrity of those who swear to uphold them.

1
[[link removed]]
The video is directed not only at military service members but also at
members of the intelligence community—but in this article, I’m
focusing exclusively on the former.

_Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.) (@MarkHertling) was commander of U.S.
Army Europe from 2011 to 2012. He also commanded 1st Armored Division
in Germany and Multinational Division-North during the surge in Iraq
from 2007 to 2009. @markhertling_
_You may have noticed that sh*t has gotten weird the last few
years. __The xxxxxx_ [[link removed]]_ was founded
to provide analysis and reporting in defense of America’s liberal
democracy. That’s it. That’s the mission. The xxxxxx was founded
in 2019 by Sarah Longwell, Charlie Sykes, and Bill Kristol._

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

* U.S. Military
[[link removed]]
* illegal orders
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Bluesky [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]