In a tense escalation of political rhetoric surrounding military obedience, a group of Democratic lawmakers, including military veterans and former intelligence officials, released a video last week urging U.S. service members to refuse any illegal orders that might violate the Constitution. The message, delivered by figures such as Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, has drawn sharp condemnation from the Trump administration, which has launched an investigation into Kelly and labeled the video as seditious. The controversy highlights longstanding debates over the boundaries of lawful orders in the military, rooted in principles established after World War II.
The video, posted amid growing concerns about domestic threats to democratic institutions, features the lawmakers addressing troops directly. "Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home," they state. "Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal order. ... You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution." Kelly, a Navy veteran with 25 years of service and a former NASA astronaut, defended the message on CNN, saying, "I think it's important to say that there is nothing more American than standing up for the Constitution, that's what we were doing. President didn't like it, so now he calls for us to be hanged."
Slotkin, a former CIA officer, elaborated on ABC News' "This Week" Sunday, explaining that the video stemmed from direct outreach by military personnel. "We've had report after report of legal officers, JAG officers, coming forward and saying, 'Look, I push back on this. I'm not sure that this is legal,'" she said. "There is such things as illegal orders. That's why it's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Going back to Nuremberg, right? And it's just a -- it's a totally benign statement." The lawmakers did not specify particular orders in the video but have since referenced U.S. military actions in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean, where 21 strikes against alleged drug smugglers have resulted in 83 deaths, according to the Department of Defense.
The administration's response was swift and forceful. On Monday, the Department of Defense announced it would investigate Kelly for his role in the video, citing his use of rank and service affiliation. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, echoing President Donald Trump, described the message as undermining military discipline. In a post on X, Hegseth wrote, "Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of 'good order and discipline.'" He added that the Pentagon "is reviewing his statements and actions, which were addressed directly to all troops while explicitly using his rank and service affiliation -- lending the appearance of authority to his words."
Hegseth has also ordered the Navy to review Kelly for "potentially unlawful conduct." Vice President JD Vance amplified the criticism on social media, stating, "If the president hasn't issued illegal orders, [then] members of Congress telling the military to defy the president is by definition illegal." The FBI is reportedly attempting to schedule interviews with six members of Congress involved in the video, though details remain limited.
At the heart of the dispute is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which governs service members' obligations. Experts in military law emphasize that while troops have the right to refuse orders they believe are unlawful, they face significant risks if those orders are later deemed legal. Retired Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force judge advocate general (JAG) and professor at Southwestern Law School, explained that service members must presume orders are lawful unless they are "patently" illegal, such as war crimes. "The law cloaks all orders on the presumption of legality, as long as it's given by a proper authority and related to a military duty," she told ABC News. "The default is that you follow all orders, and all orders are presumed lawful."
VanLandingham stressed the hierarchical nature of the military, noting, "The military for centuries has been a hierarchical organization whose lifeblood, whose main dynamic, is obedience to orders." She criticized the lawmakers' video for not fully acknowledging the dilemma faced by troops: "My primary complaint about the video from the congressmen and women was that it failed to appreciate the quandary that service members are actually in. Strong obedience to orders are the default ... especially when you have things like lawyers telling you it's lawful."
John Dehn, a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and former Army JAG officer, highlighted the potential legal gray areas. He said the administration might argue the video interferes with the chain of command and separation of powers. "I think what the Vice President is trying to say is that members of Congress should not be prejudging the legality of orders that might be issued, and that doing so has a tendency to interfere with the military chain command," Dehn said. However, he noted it remains "not resolved" whether statutes on interfering with military loyalty could apply to lawmakers reminding troops of their duty to reject unlawful orders.
For service members, the stakes are high. "The risk is on the service member if they choose to disobey an order and that order turns out to be lawful," Dehn explained. "They assume the risk that it may be lawful when they disobey, which is another reason why, when soldiers ask about this, we advise them to seek clarification, and legal advice if possible. Disobedience isn't the first step." A military judge, rather than a jury, would ultimately decide the legality of a disobeyed order.
"Service members disobey at their peril," VanLandingham said. "You would access a military lawyer to ask for their advice on whether or not it's lawful or not, and if you still think it's unlawful, then you disobey it and you see what happens."
This principle traces back to the Nuremberg trials following World War II, where Nazi defendants could not justify atrocities by claiming they were merely following orders. The trials established that individuals must refuse commands that clearly violate international law. In the U.S. context, the military oath of enlistment binds service members to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which the Democratic lawmakers invoked in their video.
The controversy also touches on recent military operations. Slotkin alluded to "legal gymnastics" in the Caribbean strikes tied to counter-narcotics efforts against Venezuela. A classified memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, briefed to Congress, provides legal justification for these actions, making it challenging for troops to refuse participation. Additionally, federal deployments of the National Guard to cities like Los Angeles have raised questions among some Democrats about the scope of executive authority.
Despite these references, the lawmakers have not identified specific unlawful orders, and it is unclear if any service members have been directed to break the law. VanLandingham noted that troops receive "legal cover" from JAG officers who pre-vet orders for compliance. Hegseth, who has publicly criticized military lawyers based on his Army experience, fired the top JAGs for the Air Force and Army in February.
The UCMJ applies even to retirees with 20 years of service, who retain pension benefits tied to their rank. Kelly, as a retired Navy captain, falls into this category, complicating the investigation into his statements. Broader implications include potential strains on civil-military relations, as the video blurs lines between congressional oversight and operational command.
As the investigation proceeds, experts like Dehn caution that while the lawmakers' intent may be to uphold constitutional principles, their approach risks politicizing the apolitical military. Democrats, meanwhile, frame their message as a defense against perceived threats from within the government. With no confirmed instances of illegal orders emerging, the debate underscores the delicate balance between obedience and accountability in the armed forces. The Pentagon has not released a timeline for its review, leaving the fate of the involved lawmakers uncertain amid ongoing political tensions in Washington.