NOV 20, 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WHEN SIX MEMBERS OF CONGRESS released a short video on Tuesday emphatically reminding military personnel1<\/a>\u00a0that they must not obey illegal orders, the message ricocheted through the political world and the media like a rifle shot. Reactions split along predictable lines. Some saw the video as a necessary civic reminder in a volatile moment. Others attacked it as inappropriate political rhetoric directed at the armed forces. Still others lied about what was said, or mocked the message as condescending. As the controversy escalated, the lawmakers who appeared in the video began receiving death threats, while the president himself suggested\u2014astonishingly\u2014that their message constituted \u201csedition<\/a>\u201d and that they should be\u00a0imprisoned<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0executed<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I want to address a fundamental point revealed by the video and the debate surrounding it: Most Americans do not understand what is in the oaths sworn by our service members. Confusion about that, combined with an understandable desire to keep the military a nonpartisan institution, fuels both the alarm that motivated the video\u2019s creation and the backlash against the video. A clearer understanding on this subject will help reveal the aspects of our constitutional structure that protect the nation from unlawful uses of the military.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s the truth, learned on the first day of service by every enlisted soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian, and coast guardsman, and learned but sometimes not recognized by the young officers who first take the oath: There is not one military oath. There are two. And the differences between them explain exactly who is responsible for refusing illegal orders, why the system was designed that way, and what it means for this moment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One reason the debate keeps going sideways is that the public keeps talking about \u201cthe military\u201d as if it were a single, undifferentiated mass of people with identical obligations. It isn\u2019t. The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two different oaths\u2014one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers. That structure is not bureaucratic trivia; it is grounded on the bedrock American civil\u2013military relations. Ignoring it leads to the misleading assumption that everyone in uniform bears equal responsibility when confronted with an unlawful command.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They don\u2019t. And that distinction matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Enlisted members swear<\/a> to support and defend the Constitution, and to \u201cobey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.\u201d And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member\u2019s obligation is to obey \u201clawful\u201d orders<\/a>, and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!pP-L!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1d6edc6f-0935-4422-a7fc-96c213dae0ca_3000x2175.jpeg\")
<\/a>