Yes, Virginia, unlawful military orders do exist
President Trump recently suggested court-martialing — and even executing — Senator Mark Kelly and other veterans for stating an undeniable truth: U.S. service members must refuse unlawful orders. The President offered no examples of what he considers “lawful,” but history gives us a clear one.
On March 16, 1968, soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 23rd Infantry Division entered the Vietnamese hamlet of My Lai and massacred between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians. The Army initially reported the mission as a success with 128 “enemy kills.” The truth emerged only because two soldiers exposed the atrocity.
Only one person, Lt. William Calley, was convicted — despite the fact that the massacre plainly violated multiple provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, includinng cruelty, murder and war crimes. The order reportedly given by Calley’s superior, Capt. Ernest Medina, to kill all “enemy sympathizers” was illegal on its face. Every soldier is trained not to follow such an order.
Today, reports indicate that a Navy Admiral was instructed to destroy small boats near Venezuela and “kill everyone aboard,” without a congressional declaration of war. Subordinates carried out those orders, and some have reportedly questioned their legality.
This is exactly what Senator Kelly was addressing: the military is obligated not to obey unlawful orders — regardless of who gives them. That principle is foundational to American military law, not a political disagreement.
When a president threatens officials for defending the rule of law, it is the public’s responsibility to pay attention. Our Constitution provides checks and balances for moments like this. We should use them. We will not get a second chance.