The Constitutional Crisis: When Military Duty Clashes With Illegal Orders

The Unfolding Crisis of Military Ethics

The United States military finds itself in unprecedented constitutional territory as the Trump administration continues to authorize military actions whose legality has been widely questioned by experts and observers. According to recent reporting, the administration has been carrying out what many characterize as illegal military strikes against vessels in the Caribbean allegedly involved in drug smuggling. This context sets the stage for a profound ethical dilemma facing American service members who must navigate their duty to obey commands against their constitutional obligation to refuse unlawful orders.

On November 18, 2025, six Democratic members of Congress—all with military or intelligence backgrounds—issued a video message directly addressing military personnel, stating unequivocally: “You can refuse illegal orders” and “You must refuse illegal orders.” This intervention provoked an extreme response from President Donald Trump, who characterized the legislators’ action as “seditious behavior, punishable by death.” This exchange represents a dangerous escalation in the tension between executive authority and constitutional safeguards.

The Broader Pattern of Questionable Military Deployment

This is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern that has alarmed international human rights observers since Trump returned to office. The administration has deployed National Guard and federal military troops to multiple American cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and others to quell largely peaceful protests or enforce immigration laws. Additionally, there have been reports of deportations without due process, detainees held in inhumane conditions, and threats of forcible removal of Palestinians from Gaza.

Senator Elissa Slotkin, one of the lawmakers who signed the video message, revealed to The New York Times that she had heard from currently serving troops who expressed concern about their personal liability in operations such as those occurring in the Caribbean. This anxiety among service members reflects the genuine moral injury being inflicted upon those sworn to protect our Constitution.

Research Findings on Military Understanding of Illegal Orders

Research conducted by scholars of international relations and international law at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab provides crucial insight into how service members perceive their responsibilities regarding unlawful orders. The survey, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, polled 818 active-duty troops and revealed that most understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders and their duty to disobey certain commands.

Only 9% of respondents stated they would “obey any order,” while about 25% described in their own words their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal,” or “obviously unconstitutional.” Another 8% spoke specifically about immoral orders, with one respondent noting that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal—they’re immoral.”

The Profound Constitutional Implications

What we are witnessing is nothing less than a systematic assault on the constitutional principles that have guided American civil-military relations for centuries. The foundation of our military ethics rests on the understanding that service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution—not to obey any individual, regardless of office. Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial explicitly require service members to obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful ones, with no defense available for following illegal commands from superiors.

The fact that President Trump would respond to legitimate congressional concern about unlawful orders with threats of death penalty for “sedition” demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of—or disregard for—the constitutional order he swore to protect. This response should alarm every American who values the rule of law and the careful balance of power established by our Founders.

The Moral Injury to Service Members

The most heartbreaking aspect of this crisis is the moral injury being inflicted upon our service members. One National Guard member deployed to Los Angeles during immigration-related unrest told The New York Times: “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring. This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.” These words should shake us to our core—the very people who volunteer to protect our nation are being ordered to participate in actions that violate their conscience and their training.

Our military personnel are conditioned to obey, yet they face potential prosecution for following “manifestly unlawful” orders. They are not legal experts, yet they must navigate complex ethical dilemmas with profound personal and professional consequences. The survey findings that troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law only compounds this tragedy.

The Silver Lining: Constitutional Consciousness Persists

Despite these challenges, the research provides grounds for hope. When explicitly reminded that shooting civilians violates international law, troops’ willingness to disobey such orders increased by 8 percentage points. This demonstrates that education and reinforcement of legal standards can empower service members to fulfill their constitutional duties.

The research also revealed that between one-third to half of U.S. troops surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners, or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. This commitment to ethical principles amidst immense pressure is testament to the strength of character within our armed forces.

The Path Forward: Education and Courage

The solution to this crisis lies in both institutional reinforcement of ethical standards and individual courage. Research by criminologist Eva Whitehead shows that when some troops disobey—even indirectly—others find courage to do the same. Those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly.

The recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline suggests that American service members are actively seeking guidance on how to navigate these ethical challenges. This represents an opportunity for military leadership, Congress, and civil society to provide the support and education needed to uphold constitutional principles.

Conclusion: Defending the Constitution Above All

We stand at a precipice in American history. The fundamental principles of civil-military relations, the rule of law, and constitutional governance are being tested in ways we haven’t seen in generations. The research from UMass Amherst reveals that despite immense pressure, many service members understand their duty to disobey unlawful orders and are looking to the Constitution and international law for guidance.

The response from Democratic lawmakers—themselves veterans and intelligence professionals—represents exactly the type of leadership needed in this moment: clear, principled, and focused on the constitutional obligations that bind us all. Their message to troops about refusing illegal orders wasn’t seditious—it was patriotic.

As Americans, we must support our service members in their ethical dilemmas while demanding that our leaders respect the constitutional boundaries of their authority. The survival of our republic depends on maintaining the principle that no one—not even the president—is above the law, and that military power must always be subordinate to civilian authority and constitutional constraints.

The oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, remains the highest obligation of every service member—and every American. In this moment of crisis, we must all find the courage to fulfill that sacred duty.