A recent controversy has arisen over the duty of military members to follow orders.

Several politicians, including those who are also veterans, have said in a video on Nov. 18, 2025, directed at current serving members of the military, that “You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

The politicians are Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, Rep. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania.

Pundits suggest that this video was aimed at the current president, insinuating that he has given illegal orders. Authorizing blowing up drug boats in the Caribbean or the deployment of the military in U.S. cities has fueled speculation among the left that these may be illegal orders. However, none of the six politicians in the video could point to an order given by the president that was illegal.

Members of the military, upon enlistment, swear that they “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 (USMJ).

Orders that are clear violations of the U.S. Constitution, international law, or treaties such as the Geneva Convention are examples of illegal orders. Members of the military presume that the orders they receive, that are consistent with the USMJ, are legal.

Since members of the military already receive education on the UCMJ, especially Article 92, which establishes that they must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders, the video produced by these politicians clearly has a political rather than an instructional motive. However, if a member of the military refuses an order, insisting it is illegal, a military judge (in a court-martial) determines whether the order was legal or illegal. If the judge determines that the order is legal, then the member of the military will be determined to be guilty of disobeying orders and may end up in a suite at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (military prison).

Of the six politicians in the video, Kelly stands out as the only one subject to the USMJ. He is a retired Navy officer, receiving pension-related benefits, and can be recalled to active duty. According to military.com, “When an officer retires, their commission normally remains in force and effect forever. In return for the privilege of being legally entitled to being addressed by their military rank and getting all their retirement benefits, they basically remain an “officer of the United States” until death. That means that, if there is a recall, the officers can be brought back without an act of Congress or presidential recall.”

The Department of War is investigating bringing Kelly to active duty and submitting him to a court-martial for sedition. DOW asserts that Kelly’s comments constituted conduct “to the prejudice of good order and discipline” or a violation of U.S. code, which prohibits encouraging disloyalty or insubordination among the armed forces. There is precedent for this, as indicated in United States v. Dinger and United States v. Larrabee, where military appellate courts reaffirmed that retirees receiving service-related benefits under the jurisdiction of the USMJ can be tried for offenses after retirement. However, there is no precedent of a sitting senator being court-martialed after retirement. Kelly has been fundraising based on his comments in the video. (The Independent) It does not take a genius to conclude that this smells politically motivated.

The implication that the current president is preparing to issue illegal orders is a form of political speculation. Using the serving military as a political pawn is contrary to the integrity and stability of the armed forces. The six politicians in the video could not point to any illegal order given by the president. Their discussion encourages doubt in military discipline, undermining national readiness and going against the national interest. A court-martial conviction of Kelly would tamp down such seditious commentary but would also spark a political firestorm unheard of in recent years.

Chuck Roberts is a freelance writer in Rochelle.