A political firestorm has erupted in Washington after six Democratic lawmakers urged U.S. troops to refuse unlawful orders, forcing a national reckoning over presidential authority, military obedience, and the legal limits of power.
Americans and the rest of the world confront a fundamental question: who truly decides what is legal in the armed forces — and what happens when those in power attempt to make themselves the sole arbiter?
Lessons from history
Many Germans, especially those in the highest levels of the defeated Nazi government, were not able to use as a defence that they were only following orders when they gave orders that resulted in horrific crimes against the countries they invaded, murdering civilian populations and select individuals. Hence many Naco-criminals were shot and hanged in the shadow of the Nuremberg trials after World War II. Until recently few would have questioned that this was appropriate punishment for being good Germans and obedient and loyal soldiers. This brings to mind Trump’s war of terror against coastal fishing boats under the guise of fighting drug smugglers, bringing to light what few would have questioned in another time.
Since early September 2025, the United States military — acting in part under orders from President Trump — has carried out multiple lethal strikes on small vessels in international waters (Caribbean Sea, eastern Pacific) that it says were involved in drug trafficking. However, no proof has been provided, and no effort has been made to intercept and arrest those alleged to be smuggling drugs to the US. It is not hard to understand that many see such actions as a part of a larger geopolitical game against a sovereign country, Venezuela, over ideology and who controls the resources of that country.
It appears that none of these boats were armed, nor was proof or evidence provided that they were actually transporting drugs, and even if they were, does this justify summary executions on the high seas? We can only take the word of Donald Trump, who claimed the boat was carrying drugs from Venezuela and that the strike killed 11 members of a notorious gang. It is clear that tensions with Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro are rapidly escalating—and that is highly likely the real motivation. It is easy to designate a country as a ‘narco-terror cartel’ with words to justify illegal acts under the guise of keeping Americans safe from drugs.
However, anyone who has ever been in the US military should know, at least in my time, 40 years ago, in the US Army, what was and was not an illegal order. No soldier can find justification to follow orders if “the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.” That includes violations of human rights, war crimes, including torture the killing of civilians, and doing anything that would violate the US Constitution and international law.
Even former UN ambassador John Bolton argues that Trump’s actions toward Venezuela lack planning, strategy, and congressional or hemispheric support. He sees “a mishmash of thinking” in the White House and warns that a failed military flex in the Caribbean could seriously damage American credibility. In a November 2025 op‑ed, Bolton argued that overthrowing Nicolas Maduro’s regime in Venezuela will require “mundane hard work,” not “theater.” He described that a successful effort would need “bipartisan U.S. support, a revived international coalition, and providing Venezuela’s opposition with material resources” rather than just force or blunt action.
I was just following orders!
There should be no doubt that members of the US military can and should be prosecuted for following orders that are clearly unlawful. In the U.S. military, not every order is automatically lawful just because it comes from a superior or the President. A soldier cannot legally justify torture, murder of civilians, or other war crimes by saying, “I was just following orders.”
Service members are bound by the US Constitution and military law. It is worth noting that the oath of enlistment, sworn by everyone who joins the military, states they “will 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.”
Don’t Give Up the Ship!
Now several U.S. senators, who happen to be former military and intelligence service personnel, are facing allegations of sedition after urging military and intelligence personnel to refuse “illegal orders,” prompting the Pentagon to request an FBI investigation. The lawmakers’ comments have sparked controversy and debate over whether encouraging service members to question commands undermines the chain of command, potentially affecting military discipline and morale.
Legal experts warn that while the military oath requires obedience to lawful orders, messaging perceived as inciting defiance could erode public trust in the armed forces, damage its international reputation, and create ambiguity around the limits of lawful authority in high-stakes situations. However, the law is the law, and that is what sets the US military apart from that of many of its former enemies, at least in theory.
Mark Kelly — a retired Navy captain, former fighter pilot, and NASA astronaut — and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan joined four Democratic House members in a sharply worded video urging U.S. troops and intelligence officers to “refuse illegal orders” from their superiors.
The release triggered an extraordinary response: the Pentagon opened a formal investigation into Kelly under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, citing a statute forbidding actions that damage “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline.” The Washington Post+1 Meanwhile, Trump and his allies blasted the lawmakers as traitors — accusing them of “seditious behaviour, punishable by death.” The Washington Post+2The Guardian+2
Defenders argue Kelly and the others were simply reminding troops of their Constitutional Duty not to follow unlawful orders — a principle long recognized in U.S. military law. Trump and some of his attack dogs have quickly responded by opening an investigation of him, and Trump further claims that Mark Kelly and other senators are guilty of ‘seditious behaviour, punishable by death.’ In response, House Democratic leaders quickly condemned President Donald Trump’s rhetoric for suggesting lawmakers who put out the controversial video urging military members to “refuse illegal orders” could be punished by death, calling the president’s posts Thursday “disgusting and dangerous.”
The Department of Defense said that it is investigating Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, who was in the video. According to several lawmakers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened an inquiry into the 6 Democrats. However, at least for now, the DoD statement says the investigation is based on a federal law that applies to retired personnel: because Kelly is a retired Navy captain, he remains subject to possible recall to active duty and martial law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) if his actions are judged to have undermined “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces.”
Defense Secretary Hegseth recently posted on social media that ‘[t]he video made by the “Seditious Six” was despicable, reckless, and false’ in regard to a video from lawmakers that reminded troops to refuse illegal orders. According to Bruce Fein, a lawyer specialising in constitutional and international law who served as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice under former President Ronald Reagan, Kelly was “simply echoing the law.”.
Americans, especially the younger generation, must never forget Lt. William Calley and the 1968 My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, where hundreds of unarmed civilians — women, children, and the elderly — were slaughtered. Calley’s claim that he was “just following orders” was rejected by the courts, setting a crucial precedent: blindly obeying authority does not absolve anyone from moral or legal responsibility.
While President Richard Nixon later pardoned Calley, arguably reflecting the pressures of military hierarchy, the massacre’s exposure, combined with the Pentagon Papers, fuelled public outrage and helped bring the Vietnam War to an end. It was clear, and in looking back, that there were many illegal orders during this war and other conflicts, and that is why America has lost so much respect in the world.
Just as Calley was ultimately made the scapegoat in a larger system of failures, Trump and his close minions may likewise find themselves facing accountability, as the chain of command and the rule of law refuse to bend to a single individual’s authority. Otherwise it will break, and illegal orders can have far-reaching consequences.
My Lai and Nazi War Crimes should remind us that legality, morality, and conscience are not optional — and that any nation must always weigh them over convenience or loyalty to absolute power and political games.
The “Seditious Six” video is far more than a passing brief controversy — it has forced a national reckoning over who defines a lawful order and how far presidential authority truly reaches. In the aftermath, Pentagon reviews, an FBI inquiry, and escalating political rhetoric have exposed deep divisions over whether the lawmakers issued a necessary reminder of constitutional duty or crossed a line that risks politicizing the military.
The core debate is no longer the video itself but the broader struggle over whether U.S. troops are expected to uphold the Constitution or simply follow directives from above without question.
It should be clear when history is written that a democratic system is secure when service members themselves are the ones who can recognize — and even refuse or ask for clarification of—unlawful commands. As investigations continue, the US and its leadership must decide whether the armed services and intelligence agencies involved will reaffirm these long-standing principles or allow political pressure to erode them. History has shown the consequences of abandoning that responsibility; the current moment tests whether the United States remembers those lessons.
Jeffrey K. Silverman is a freelance journalist and international development specialist, BSc, MSc, based for 30 years in Georgia and the former Soviet Union
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
