Recent developments involving Congressional Democrats have raised serious concerns about the integrity of military and intelligence operations in the United States. A new video released by these Democrats urges military and intelligence officials to refuse orders from President Trump that they deem “unlawful.” This move is alarming and appears to flirt with the ideals of chaos and insubordination. Government officials swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and calling for disobedience from the ranks fundamentally undermines the rule of law.
Historically, the defense of “I was just following orders” has not been accepted in cases of clear wrongdoing. A poignant example is Lt. William Calley and the My Lai Massacre, where the military faced intense scrutiny for its actions during the Vietnam War. Democrats may be signaling dangerous precedents by suggesting insubordination in the face of what they label unlawful directives. The question remains: which orders do they believe fall into this category?
Recent court rulings offer hints. For instance, the Supreme Court recently stayed an order from Judge Maame Ewusi Mensah Frimpong, which had limited ICE raids in Los Angeles. Similarly, Judge Sara Ellis in Chicago tried to place restrictions on ICE operations, only to have the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals call her injunction overbroad. Other judges in San Francisco and Portland aimed to restrict National Guard assistance for ICE agents. These rulings, mostly occurring in left-leaning cities, reflect an ongoing struggle between state and federal intent regarding immigration enforcement. Despite these judicial challenges, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled in favor of Trump’s directives on multiple occasions.
The sheer number of injunctions issued against the Trump administration is uncomfortable to reflect upon. Within just ten months of his presidency, nearly four dozen judicial constraints emerged. This figure nearly eclipses the total from his entire first term, illustrating an activist judicial system reluctant to acknowledge the electoral mandate Trump received. Judicial decisions made by well-educated judges from esteemed institutions like Harvard or Yale have been overturned repeatedly, raising questions about their refusal to accept lawful actions from the president.
Critically, it is absurd to think that military personnel, who may not carry extensive legal training, would navigate these turbulent waters better than judges. How is a young soldier to discern lawful orders when the legal landscape itself is rife with controversy? The troubling trend suggests that Democrats, by advocating for disobedience, promote an image of bureaucratic chaos, where individuals—irrespective of department—decide which orders to follow. Consider the case of Judge Julia Kobick, who enjoined the Trump administration from enforcing policies regarding biological sex on passports. The Supreme Court later stayed this unusual injunction. Yet, if bureaucrats had chosen to disregard Trump’s orders based on this ruling, it presents a slippery slope of selective compliance with laws.
This climate of disobedience and dismissal disrupts the fabric of governance. Bureaucrats cannot become their own arbiters of law under the guise of personal interpretation. Evaluating historical precedents, one recalls the controversial drone strike policy during the Obama administration, which also sparked significant debate over legality and ethics. Under Obama, targeted killings of American citizens labeled as terrorists were sanctioned by the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel), raising the question of whether military personnel should have refused orders deemed questionable. Disobedience in such a scenario would have led to mutiny—an act that disrupts effective military functioning.
The relentless efforts to undermine Trump—from multiple indictments to impeachment trials—underscore an ongoing struggle against his presidency. Yet, this recent call for insubordination is reminiscent of much larger implications. If military, intelligence, or bureaucratic officials begin ignoring lawful orders, the repercussions could be catastrophic. This hypothetical situation would set a treacherous precedent for future administrations, where any military official may feel emboldened to reject orders based on subjective interpretation of legality.
Article II clearly delineates the president’s role as commander-in-chief, with mechanisms for Congressional oversight, such as impeachment, available to deal with misconduct. However, encouraging military and intelligence figures to disregard orders from the president is not the answer and opens the door to broader complications. This proposal mirrors the kind of chaotic maneuvers that can compromise national security and the foundation of American governance.
"*" indicates required fields
