Trump, the Six Democrats, and Unlawful Orders
It was not entirely clear which specific orders upset the lawmakers, but the video came out right after the Trump administration authorized military strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, threatened military action in Venezuela, and deployed the National Guard into U.S. cities – actions that have sparked legal challenges and widespread concerns.
Slotkin and other critics contend that enlistees in the military take an oath to obey the Constitution, not the commander-in-chief or any other official. That point is true to some extent, but the concept of “unlawful orders” is not objective or self-defining. Even the oath of enlistment itself is somewhat murky. Personnel taking the oath swear both to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” Military officers swear the oath of commissioned officers, which contains very similar language.
This is from Ted Galen Carpenter, “Trump’s ‘Unlawful Orders’ Dispute,” Antiwar.com, November 25, 2025.
The piece is excellent. It helped me think through the problem.
Here’s the ending:
Moreover, if the allegation that Trump is trying to establish a dictatorship proves to be bogus, encouraging military figures to defy the president’s orders risks creating chaos in the chain of command and badly weakening the military as a reliable institution. Worse, such disobedience undermines the core constitutional principle of civilian control of the military. America’s founders wisely designated an elected civilian official as the commander-in-chief of the military.
Do we really want members of the military, especially high-ranking officers, deciding whether or not to obey an order from the commander-in-chief? Embracing such a mentality entails the inherent risk of encouraging military leaders to substitute their judgment for that of the president. Down that path lies an enhanced risk of a coup by the military elite.
Read the whole thing.
Anyone who decides to disobey an order of the Commander in Chief better be really, really confident that the order is unlawful. All members of the military are subject to the UCMJ, not civilian law and courts.
Yes, officers can and should take pause when in doubt on the lawfulness of an order. There are processes in place to support officers in command, legal counsel at some level of the unit, as well as informal channels up the chain of command.
Also, if an officer will not execute orders, they offer their resignation. Perhaps this was an underlying circumstance for the recent early retirement of the Southcom commander.
Additionally, servicemembers often reach out to their congressional reps when there are concerns of mismanagement within the military. This seems a better application of congressional oversight than the recent PSA, with its vague hypothetical scenario.