The real rules about the military disobeying false orders

Mark Hertlin, The Bulwark - Here’s 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.

One reason the debate keeps going sideways is that the public keeps talking about “the military” as if it were a single, undifferentiated mass of people with identical obligations. It isn’t. The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two different oaths—one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers. That structure is not bureaucratic trivia; it is grounded on the bedrock American civil–military relations. Ignoring it leads to the misleading assumption that everyone in uniform bears equal responsibility when confronted with an unlawful command.

They don’t. And that distinction matters.

Enlisted members swear to support and defend the Constitution, and to “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.” And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member’s obligation is to obey “lawful” orders, 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.

Which brings us to the officer oath—shorter in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to “support and defend” the Constitution; to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it; and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. They also affirm that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What they do not swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to obey the president and the officers above them.

That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders intended. They are expected—by law, by professional ethic, and by centuries of tradition—to exercise independent judgment when presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational. It is their job.