November 29, 2025
This article is copied from a Facebook Veterans’ group called “Americans Against Trump“. It was submitted by an anonymous veteran to urge U.S. service members to remember their oaths and to refuse illegal orders. Emphasis and links have been added to assist the reader.
The Public Service Announcement as it was released and referenced by this article follows below.
“I have been reading many posts and many insights and opinions of the ethical and principled value of the politicians, noting that military members need to disobey the orders, and many state that they are circumventing the chain of command of the President, who is part of the chain of command. As a veteran, the foundational bedrock of American service, both in the military and law enforcement, we all took the Oath of Office, which is sworn not to a person, but to the Constitution itself. It seems many in the administration, and their supporters, including fellow vets and law enforcement personnel, seem to have forgotten.
“The “point of inflection” I am trying to have everyone reflect on to understand is that many are looking for verbiage in the specific wording of the oaths and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). For officers, the oath (5 U.S.C. § 3331) creates a solitary allegiance to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with no mention of the President. For enlisted personnel (10 U.S.C. § 502), while there is a promise to obey the President, it is expressly qualified by the phrase ‘according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.’
“The administration and many who support this administration need to understand this creates a legal hierarchy where the Constitution and the UCMJ are superior to any directive from a superior officer or the President; therefore, an order that violates the Constitution is, by definition, an unlawful order that creates no legal duty to obey.
“And this is the true and legal definition that many legal scholars and those who have studied law understand and have reflected on for decades, and still something many are taught in law schools, from law enforcement academies to courses in ethics. A ‘lawful order’ must connect to a military duty and must not contradict the statutory or constitutional rights of the people. If an order directs the commission of a crime or violates the Constitution, such as an edict to seize private property without due process, detain citizens without cause, or commit war crimes, it is legally a nullity.
“One of the things many in the administration and even those of the supporters don’t seem to know is that many who studied military law know that the (Manual for Courts-Martial) clarifies that an order is unlawful if a person of “ordinary sense and understanding” would know it to be illegal. Therefore, a service member has not only the right but the legal duty to disobey such an order. Obedience to an unlawful order is not a defense in a court-martial; a soldier who obeys a command to commit a constitutional violation or a war crime becomes a co-conspirator to that crime.
“While learning legal parameters, the thing I have been taught is that the core independent evidence supporting this narrative is found in longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and military case law, which refutes the modern “blind obedience” narrative constantly pushed by political actors. The foundational case is Little v. Barreme (1804), where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that a naval captain was liable for damages for seizing a ship, even though he was following a direct order from President John Adams, because the President’s order contradicted a law passed by Congress. It was founded early in our history that the President is not a king and that his orders cannot override the law.
“Furthermore, in United States v. Keenan(1969), the Court of Military Appeals maintained the conviction of a Marine who killed an elderly civilian on orders from his superior, establishing that “the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.”
“From my own perspective and the Nuremberg Principles, specifically Principle IV, bolstered those of ethical, theological, and historical perspectives, which the United States helped establish following World War II. This principle dictates that ‘The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.’
“We need to understand and learn that this was a reflective time that marks the shift from the feudal concept of loyalty to a sovereign to the modern concept of loyalty to the rule of law and universal human rights.
“As a student of theology and ethics, I have recognized this as the protection of moral agency that many seem not to understand, especially the administration; the uniform (the uniform of the military and law enforcement) does not absolve the wearer of their status as a moral being.
“Therefore, the “law and order” position is actually one of disobedience when the order itself is lawless. True fidelity to the Constitution requires the courage to refuse commands that threaten the very republic the soldier swore to protect.”
Public Service Announcement :
Related:
Trump Accuses Democrats of Sedition, ‘Punishable by Death,’ Over Message to the Military
New York Times,
By Shawn McCreesh
November 20, 2025