5:00Navy Hospital Corpsman Petty Officer 2nd Class Jordan Lamber recites the enlistment oath during a reenlistment occasion in Dragsvik, Finland, Nov. 10, 2025. U.S. Marine Corps
A verbal conflict between President Donald Trump and Democratic military figures and national security experts on Capitol Hill has sparked a dialogue regarding lawful and unlawful directives.
However, the legislation overseeing the military explicitly forbids those enlisted from adhering to mandates that are illegitimate.
Army Lt. Gen. Gregory K. Anderson, commanding general of the XVIII Airborne Corps, administers the enlistment oath for 64 prospective U.S. Soldiers during the 85th National Airborne Day commemoration at the Airborne and Special Operations Museum, Fayetteville, N.C., Aug. 16, 2025.Spc. Richard Morgan/22nd Mobile Public Affairs Detac
The matter surfaced after Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a former Central Intelligence Agency employee, alongside five other Democratic members of Congress, implored military personnel not to comply with "illegal orders," urging them to "Don't give up the ship."
"The risks to our Constitution aren't solely originating from overseas, but also from within our nation. Our statutes are unambiguous. You reserve the right to reject unlawful commands," they assert in the video. "Nobody is obligated to execute directives that contravene the law or our Constitution."
Trump and his governing body denounced their communication, alleging that the Democrats were inciting military members to defy their enlistment pledge.
"This is exceptionally alarming and hazardous to our Country. Their pronouncements cannot be tolerated. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???" Trump posted on his social media platform on Thursday morning.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later conveyed to reporters in her regular media briefing, "The president anticipates his Cabinet officials within the administration to uphold the law and to pursue accountability, holding individuals responsible for their perilous discourse."
Nonetheless, federal legislation does not authorize military members to contravene the law, irrespective of whether they were directed by a superior officer, descending from the commander-in-chief down the chain of command.
The enlistment oath, administered to every individual joining the military, affirms that they "will heed the directives of the President of the United States and the directives of the officers designated over me, in accordance with regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
The UCMJ encompasses several provisions and articles that specify service members are accountable for a vast array of rules and regulations, irrespective of whether they were instructed by a higher-ranking officer. This includes offenses like burglary, murder, assault, rape, and property destruction.
UCMJ's Article 134 represents an expansive clause that prohibits "all disruptions and neglects detrimental to good order and discipline within the armed forces, any conduct that discredits the armed forces, as well as crimes and offenses not punishable by death," subject to prosecution in military court.
Navy Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Jordan Lamber recite the oath of enlistment during a reenlistment ceremony in Dragsvik, Finland, Nov. 10, 2025.U.S. Marine Corps
Article 90, addressing the regulations concerning "Willfully Disobeying Superior Commissioned Officer," unequivocally bans orders that "without a legitimate military reason, encroach upon private rights or personal matters."
They are also obliged to adhere to international agreements to which the U.S. is a participating nation.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, safeguarding victims under the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, further asserts that armed service members bear criminal liability "if the subordinate recognized that the instructed action was unlawful or should have discerned its manifestly unlawful nature."
Illegitimate commands have frequently arisen in U.S. military tribunals over the years, with prosecutors resisting the "Nuremberg defense," a reference to the Nuremberg trials following World War II, where numerous Nazis unsuccessfully justified their actions by claiming adherence to superior orders.
In 1969, during the Vietnam War, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals decreed against a soldier convicted of killing a Vietnamese individual, who claimed obedience to commands.
The court determined that there was no justification for following commands if "the instruction was of such character that an individual with ordinary sense and comprehension would recognize it as illegal."
Sourse: abcnews.go.com
