Asking Soldiers to Obey the UCMJ Isn't a Crime; But Trump Thinks it is.
By Ambassador Charles A. Ray and Bruce G. Berton - November 24, 2025
Donald Trump spent Thursday demanding the death penalty for seven Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a video reminding U.S. service members of something every recruit learns in basic training: you are obligated to refuse unlawful orders. That’s it. That was the “crime.” And in any sane era, this would be the end of the story. But we’re not in a sane era.
Instead, we are treated to Trump’s escalating authoritarian fantasies and the performative outrage of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who denounced the lawmakers’ message as a “call for insurrection.” It is a perfect illustration of the Trump movement’s upside-down worldview: constitutional obedience is treason, and authoritarian loyalty is patriotism. And it points to a deeper danger, one that falls squarely into the realm of national security.
What the Law Actually Says
For all the noise, the legal reality is simple, unambiguous, and foundational to American military culture. Under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and long-standing U.S. law, service members have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. This isn’t a loophole or a technical footnote; it is a bedrock principle precisely designed to prevent the abuses associated with authoritarian regimes.
An “illegal order” is not a matter of political preference. It is defined under military law as (for example): An order that violates the Constitution, an order that directs war crimes, an order issued without lawful authority, or an order that contradicts established statutes. The U.S. military drills this into troops because history has shown the catastrophic consequences when a ruling leader’s whims replace the rule of law. From My Lai to Abu Ghraib, the lesson is painfully clear: lawful obedience requires lawful command.
What the seven lawmakers said, essentially, “follow the UCMJ,” is the furthest thing from subversion. If anything, it reinforces civilian control of the military by rooting military obedience in the law rather than in any one president’s personal desires. Yet Trump took this ordinary, responsible statement and turned it into an opportunity for vengeance performance art.
On Truth Social, he fumed that the lawmakers had committed a seditious act and later added that this was a death penalty offense, implying that they should be executed, but technically not calling for it. He then amplified a post from someone else stating that the lawmakers should “be hung” (sic ), reminiscent of January 6 when his own words spurred violent speech and potentially put lawmakers’ lives in danger. Not exactly “conduct becoming a president.”
Miller went further into rhetorical hysteria, claiming the lawmakers were “trying to stage an insurrection,” a remarkable choice of words from the architect of some of the most radical governance experiments of the Trump years.
Let’s be clear. Demanding that soldiers obey the Constitution isn’t insurrection. Ordering soldiers to violate the Constitution is unlawful. The White House spokesperson has insisted that Trump’s orders are ‘lawful’ and that he has not ordered anything illegal. That is a lie. The Trumpian position is that anything that constrains Trump, including the military’s legal obligations, must be eradicated. For this administration, law is not a guardrail. It is an enemy.
The National Security Hazard in Plain Sight
The danger of this posture goes well beyond political drama. The United States depends, existentially, on the military’s apolitical allegiance to the Constitution, not to any president. Trump’s rhetoric seeks to invert that relationship. By portraying lawful dissent as treason and demanding retribution for those who defend constitutional limits, Trump and Miller are not simply attacking seven members of Congress. They are attacking the principle that shields the United States from militarized authoritarianism. They are also sending a signal to dictators around the globe that whatever the leader of a country does or says is law rather than the established canon of laws.
National security experts inside and outside the government worry most about scenarios where a president attempts to deploy the military for personal or political ends, whether to seize voting machines, repress protests, or refuse a peaceful transfer of power. The only reliable brake in such moments is the military’s legal training and institutional culture. Trump is trying to break that brake.
If troops begin to wonder whether refusing an unlawful order will bring on presidential wrath, if congressional leaders risk their lives for reminding troops of their actual obligations, then the system of constitutional guardrails becomes brittle. That brittleness is precisely what opportunistic autocrats exploit.
The Real Insurrectionist Impulse
Trump’s suggestion that these lawmakers be executed is not a policy argument, not a legal claim, and not a misunderstanding. It is an assertion that the law is subordinate to Trump’s will. He’s demonstrating the same instinct that drove his actions after the 2020 election, the same instinct behind the weaponization of DOJ, and the same instinct behind the “Schedule F” purge: an unwavering belief that the only legitimate power is personal power.
The lawmakers’ statement was ordinary. Trump’s response was the real red flag, a glimpse of how he treats dissent, constitutional law, and the military chain of command. His message to the armed forces is unmistakable: obey me, not the law. Punish anyone who says otherwise.
The UCMJ is explicit on the issue. While military personnel are required to obey all lawful orders, they are also required to refuse to obey unlawful orders, and it gives specific examples. In addition, the Nuremberg Tribunals established the precedent that ‘I was just following orders’ is not a defense against personal liability for committing crimes while in uniform. No lawyer is confused about what treason is. And no serious national security professional believes that Trump’s fury is about safeguarding the military. This is about clearing away the final guardrails. It’s about conditioning the public to accept extreme reprisals as normal.
Sadly, it’s also about building a permission structure for the next crisis, when he again demands that the military bend to his political will. The danger isn’t the lawmakers’ video. The danger is Trump telling the military the Constitution no longer applies.
Bruce Berton served as a U.S. diplomat for over three decades, ultimately rising to the senior ranks of the Foreign Service, including two years as Ambassador and Head of Mission at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina. He is a native of the Pacific Northwest and a graduate of Pacific Lutheran University. He is a member of The Steady State
Charles A. Ray spent 20 years in the U.S. Army with two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.
Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.