President Donald Trump reacted strongly to a viral video featuring Democratic senators encouraging military personnel to “refuse illegal orders,” suggesting that such advice is worthy of the “death penalty.” This comment sparked significant backlash from various political circles while raising questions about the implications of the statement under federal law.
The lawmakers, particularly Sen. Elissa Slotkin from Michigan and joined by Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, presented their call as a constitutional defense. However, military regulations state that disobeying orders can lead to severe penalties, even when a service member believes the orders are illegal.
Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force JAG officer and law professor, expressed to FOX News Digital that it is unreasonable to expect military personnel to make judgments about legality over high-level legal advice from policymakers.
According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), compliance with orders is mandatory except in very specific circumstances where illegality is obvious. In practical terms, this means that most service members could face repercussions if they refuse an order before a proper authority has declared it illegal.
For instance, Article 90 of the UCMJ outlines that deliberately disobeying lawful orders could result in up to five years in prison, loss of pay and benefits, or even dishonorable discharge. The stakes can be even higher in wartime situations, where penalties may include the death sentence, decided by a military court.
Article 92 elaborates that not following lawful orders can lead to court-martial, demotion, and additional penalties, emphasizing the importance of maintaining discipline within the military. Legal experts argue that this strict code is vital for the chain of command, which the senator’s message seems to challenge.
The law is clear that while there is no obligation to follow an illegal order, those who comply may face prosecution unless it can be proved that the order was indisputably illegal. Conversely, military personnel executing illegal orders can be held accountable as if they had issued the order themselves, a principle established after World War II.
Interestingly, compliance doesn’t shield military members from legal trouble if the order contravenes constitutional laws or the rights of citizens. Those who follow such orders could face charges for war crimes or dereliction of duty under Article 134, which covers conduct that discredits the military.
The criteria for refusing orders are strict. An order must be evidently illegal for it to be disobeyed. Common examples include orders that would lead to harming civilians or overthrowing a government, whereas orders concerning troop deployments or executive directives are generally assumed to be lawful unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Victor Hansen, a former Army JAG officer, pointed out that military personnel aren’t typically positioned to question the legality of presidential orders regarding deployments and operations. “When service members see that video, my advice is don’t change your approach,” he said, suggesting it’s not their role to analyze the political context of military actions.
The video titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship” encourages military and intelligence officials to reject illegal orders—though there is no clear list of what qualifies. The same lawmakers advocating this message are also working on legislation that could restrict President Trump’s authority regarding National Guard deployments and counter-narcoterrorism efforts abroad.
Conservative commentators swiftly criticized the video for promoting disobedience. Army Secretary Pete Hegseth used social media to label the situation as a case of “Stage 4 TDS,” a term referring to extreme reactions against Trump.
Within the Pentagon, there are longstanding concerns that letting troops self-assess the legality of orders could erode civilian oversight, a fundamental aspect of the U.S. constitutional framework. Current protocols advise service members to seek legal counsel through their chain of command before considering disobedience, except in blatant legal breaches.
Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Stephen Lepper characterized the Democratic message as merely repeating existing law but warned it could create confusion about responsibility within military ranks.
Lepper emphasized that there is strong presumption of the legitimacy of military orders, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of the armed forces. Historical events like the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib scandal illustrate how failing to adhere to this principle can lead to disastrous consequences.
VanLandingham criticized the video as “careless and dangerous,” arguing it misrepresents the limitations on a soldier’s obligation to refuse orders. She stated that while soldiers are not obligated to obey illegal commands, recognizing one as clearly illegal is an exceedingly narrow standard.
She captured the dilemma facing service members today: complying with orders could lead to charges later, while refusing them risks everything—career, income, and even potential imprisonment. It’s an unfair situation that places an unreasonable burden on individual troops, she noted.
Ultimately, VanLandingham argued that the focus should be on holding policymakers accountable rather than putting the onus on lower ranks to determine legality. The risks for individual service members are high; missteps in either direction can lead to severe consequences, both professionally and personally.
While senators may position themselves as defenders of constitutional responsibilities, the UCMJ offers little space for personal interpretations and leaves no protections for those who misjudge the legality of their commands.
