Debate Intensifies Over Military Obedience and Sedition Amid Political Tensions

A recent social media post by "Cynical Publius" has sharply criticized the notion of military personnel disregarding lawful orders due to personal political beliefs, labeling such encouragement as "the very textbook definition of sedition." The tweet, which garnered attention on November 24, 2025, warns that such actions are a "necessary precursor to rule by military junta and an overthrow of the Constitution." This statement comes amidst a broader public debate regarding the duty of service members to obey orders and the legal implications of "unlawful orders."

The controversy was ignited when a group of six Democratic lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, released a video advising U.S. service members that they "can refuse illegal orders." Former President Donald Trump subsequently responded on Truth Social, accusing the lawmakers of "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" and calling for their arrest. This exchange has highlighted the complex legal and ethical considerations surrounding military conduct.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), service members are obligated to obey lawful orders but also have a duty to disobey orders that are "manifestly, patently unlawful." Legal experts emphasize that an order must be clearly criminal or unconstitutional for a service member to refuse it without legal peril. Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor and retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, clarified that this bar is intentionally high, citing examples like an order to murder non-threatening civilians.

The recent political rhetoric has raised concerns among military legal professionals about the politicization of military obedience. Kevin Courtney, an attorney with the Military Law Center, warned that such discourse could create a "politicized split inside the ranks," where service members might follow guidance based on their political leanings rather than legal principles. Coretta Johnson Gray, a former Air Force attorney, stressed the importance of senior leadership reaffirming their oath to the Constitution and their political neutrality to maintain public trust in the military.

The debate underscores the delicate balance between civilian control of the military, the constitutional oath taken by service members, and the potential for political influence to undermine military discipline and legal frameworks. The UCMJ outlines severe penalties, including death, for sedition or mutiny within the military, emphasizing the gravity of any actions perceived as an attempt to usurp lawful military authority.