Will the military?
This could be one of the biggest cases we’ve yet confronted. I wish I felt sure of how it’s going to go:
The Department of Defense on Monday said it is launching a “thorough review” into Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, citing “serious allegations of misconduct.”
The announcement comes days after President Donald Trump accused Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers of “seditious behavior” for a video in which they said that U.S. service members could refuse illegal orders.
In a statement posted to X, the Department of Defense said it “received serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly, who is a retired U.S. Navy captain.
“In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings,” the statement read.
“The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels,” the Pentagon said.
This is insane.
Here is the oath of enlistment:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey 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. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Here’s the explanation:
- Members of the military take an oath to the Constitution, not the president. They swear an oath of enlistment to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies” and “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” Military officers all swear the oath of commissioned officers, which is similar.
- The oath is also clear that they should be obeying orders “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” The UCMJ makes clear that service members are required to obey “any lawful general order or regulation” or they could be “punished as a court-martial may direct.”
- The Manual for Courts-Martial states that the requirement to “obey orders does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”
The Conversation did a poll of military members about following illegal orders. They clearly understand these rules:
Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.”
When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.”
Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.”
Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey.
The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.”
One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.”
This whole thing is a patented Trump political brouhaha designed to get the rubes excited and change the subject.
Kelly said, you can refuse to obey an unlawful order. But it looks like it’s going to be some kind of “trumped up” charge about “interfering with morale” or some other bullshit.
Hegseth tweeted this:
I’m sure they’re looking forward to persecuting a decorated pilot and astronaut. It’s the kind of thing that sends a thrill down Whiskey Pete’s leg and gives Trump a monarchical tumescence. And maybe they’ve purged every JAG in the military who would tell them that this is ridiculous. But if there is any sanity left in the military this will go nowhere.