I joined the military at 18. I was not particularly good at taking orders, and I discovered doing things my own way was not tolerated. The military is not accommodating to individual preferences, certainly not to teenagers like me who think they know more than they actually do. I never received a good conduct medal, but I survived four years and received an honorable discharge. Later, I found a job in which I gave the orders. It suited me better than a military career.
I learned much during my service. I learned even if those in charge made a mistake, I still had to comply. I learned even if I did not understand their reasoning, I was not always entitled to an explanation. I learned others had earned the right to be in charge and I had not. I learned things do not go well when attempting to accommodate everyone’s perspectives.
My military experience helped me in life, but I didn’t have this perspective until years later. Forty-five years later, I observe two U.S. senators and four U.S. representatives advise military and intelligence personnel on following orders. “You do not need to follow illegal orders”, they say. I never heard any claims of illegal orders during my four years. Good luck trying to weasel out of trouble by claiming such. Legislators are straying into an arena they should stay out of, sowing confusion and potentially setting up young folks for trouble–all for their own political gain.
Don’t Obey Illegal Orders
President Trump and Republicans immediately called this appeal seditious. I do not know if it is truly unlawful or seditious; lawyers and politicians can argue these points. However, it is unlikely to end well for anyone using this direction to disobey orders from immediate supervisors. Folks are most likely to err in their judgment. I doubt saying: “Senator Kelly told me not to follow illegal orders” will help during a captain’s mast or court martial.
Of course, nobody should follow an illegal order, but nobody needs a reminder from politicians. Do not do anything which violates your conscience or is beyond the pale, but such circumstances are exceptionally rare.
Stories of illegal orders have arisen during wartime, usually with regard to atrocities. During the Viet Nam War, Lt. William Calley was tried for the death of Vietnamese women and children in My Lai, Viet Nam. Lt. Calley claimed to be following orders. One of his company testified during Calley’s trial that the Lieutenant ordered him to shoot women and children being held prisoner. This was clearly an order that should have been questioned, but again such situations are extremely rare. These kinds of orders are not coming from the president, in any case.
Democrat politicians wish to sow doubt about President Trump’s authority and the legitimacy of his presidency. They claim their aim is righteous, but they are only posturing, posing as strong opposition to Trump. One-channel media hails them as brave for speaking out, but they are also unnecessarily placing doubts in the minds of military personnel.
In combat, soldiers are under tremendous pressure. They have seen their buddies killed, and they often have split seconds to make their own life and death decision. Thoughts flash across their minds: Am I going to be blamed if I do something wrong? Should I shoot or not shoot? Hesitate and you could wind up dead yourself. Soldiers should be sure of themselves when action is needed. They are trained to respond quickly to various difficult situations. Politicians won’t be alongside when they make these judgments.
The “Ferguson Effect” studied since the death of Michael Brown a decade ago has had a chilling effect on U.S. policing. These politicians are putting the military on this same tragic path.
Politicians introduce doubt where there should be none. These six remind me of actress Jane Fonda who traveled to Vietnam in 1972. She posed with America’s enemy in Hanoi, making an ill-conceived anti-war statement. Fonda was likely well intentioned, but our enemy recognized her as a fool (not a teenage Greta Thunberg type fool, but an immature 35-year-old Hollywood fool), and used her to undermine the American war effort.
Soldiers shouldn’t be caught up in the political debate–during peacetime or wartime. Military personnel should focus on their jobs without political calculations. Except during circumstances that almost nobody will ever encounter, they should always carry out orders. The effectiveness of our military depends on them not questioning orders. Raising doubts in the manner these six politicians did is harmful to military order. They used extremely poor judgment.
Regulations in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) govern responses to outrageous and inappropriate orders. If you don’t follow an order because you think it is illegal, it better be blatant and you better be damned certain of your actions. Legislators who give blanket permission to “refuse illegal orders” are setting others up for trouble. Explain your refusal to execute an order to your commanding officer. Explain it to your lawyer. Good luck in proving your case.
No politician will be around to assist during that time. Sure, they promise: “we have your back”. How much is that promise worth when a constituent appeals to them afterwards? Be dubious of their commitment to that promise.
Troubling Statements
In typical weasel language, these legislators made general statements which they can later pretend meant anything. They pretend these are innocuous statements: we never told anyone to disobey any particular order; we want you to follow every legal order. Who could disagree with that? they ask when challenged.
Please inform us: Which orders have been problematic to this point? What problematic orders do you anticipate? If you can’t provide clear guidance, why say anything at all? Your interference has consequences for military operation. None of you are the commander-in-chief, so butt out.
Unfortunately, these legislators say more than “do not follow illegal orders”:
- This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
- The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but right here at home.
- No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.
Please explain. How is this administration pitting its resources against the American people? What are the threats to our Constitution? How is our law or Constitution being violated? These are serious allegations which should be supported with clear and irrefutable evidence. Politicians should not make such vague statements to apolitical people in the military and intelligence. However, their electoral chances are enhanced by attacking the administration; that seems to be the real goal.
The president and administration officials are understandably upset about this commercial. This language is harmful to the country in the long-term. It must stop.
“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” President Trump on Truth Social, November 20, 2025
What is the Real Problem?
I asked a friend who agrees with these Democrat talking points to explain the problem with President Trump. Why do Democrats suggest he is issuing illegal orders which should not be followed? The words fascist and totalitarian immediately rolled off my friend’s tongue as he eagerly responded to my challenge.
- Trump demands absolute loyalty (totalitarian) from everyone in his sphere; he demands his subordinates do not question what he dictates. Prime examples are Pam Bondi & Pete Hegseth. They do what Trump demands.
- Great leaders surround themselves with people who will challenge them and tell them when they are wrong; (See “Team Of Rivals” book regarding Abraham Lincoln). Trump tried having people who would stand up to him in his first administration, but could not take anyone who disagreed with him. He now only brings in sycophants.
This is very weak tea. He inserts personal opinion, or more likely personal dislike for Trump, in place of facts. If he wishes to convince us these legislators are sincere and correct, facts are required. I see no evidence Bondi and Hegseth cow-tow to Trump’s demands. I hold the opposite opinion:
- Trump, like most leaders, picks subordinates with similar worldviews, not folks who would pursue policies opposite of his own. Maybe my friend would prefer someone like former Attorney General Eric Holder who called himself “President Obama’s wingman”?
- Trump is the boss. If I disagree with my boss, I attempt to dissuade him. If I cannot change his mind, I comply. My friend, however, prefers a public reckoning like when President Truman fired General McArthur during the Korean War. Was McArthur fired because he wasn’t a sycophant? Are Hegseth and Bondi really sycophants? Opinions abound. Everyone has one.
- How does he know they know are sycophants? If they agree with Trump’s policy, why wouldn’t they implement it? They might even have raised objections at some point, but we are not privy to internal discussions, so we cannot possibly know what objections were raised or how they might have changed policy. He lacks any evidence for this claim.
- Yes, President Lincoln appointed to his cabinet political rivals who ran against him for the 1860 Republican nomination. Interestingly enough, President Trump has also appointed rivals who challenged him for the presidency: Ben Carson (HUD Secretary), Mike Huckabee (Ambassador to Israel), Vivek Ramaswamy (DOGE), Marco Rubio (Secretary of State), and Robert F Kennedy Jr (HHS Secretary, and a Democrat, no less). Go figure.
My friend and critic continues:
- Seeking to control (totalitarian)- universities, law firms, student protesters, immigrants, federal agencies (to name a few) usually by extorting them.
Harvard university violated its own standards for discrimination. They stood for inclusion for some by excluding others when they failed to protect Jewish students from persecution. That failure should be highlighted. Harvard also has an unbelievably large endowment. Why do they need any federal money in any case? https://apnews.com/article/harvard-trump-agreement-antisemitism-ivy-a84b88a8136a852aa305e508d012afb6
What control of law firms and student protestors? That’s a puzzlement.
Immigrants who broke the law are being deported, not controlled.
Federal agencies are under the jurisdiction of the president. Employees sometimes dislike new regulations, but they must recognize the authority to implement them. I am a federal government employee, and I am not being controlled by anyone, certainly not the president. I know of nobody in my agency who is controlled or extorted. This seems like hyperbole.
My friend also claimed the president retaliated against his opposition by charging former FBI Director Comey, former NSA Director Bolton, and New York Attorney General James. This supposedly illustrates his “suppression of opposition”. Are these three being prosecuted because they broke the law or because Trump doesn’t like them? If they broke the law, shouldn’t they be prosecuted? If the claims are frivolous that should become apparent eventually. Furthermore, Bolton was pursued for prosecution under the Biden Administration.
Why is the phrase “nobody is above the law” touted only when your political rival is examined?
My friend also objected to the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) chief. I agree this firing certainly appeared an attempt to manipulate statistics. However, Trump has the authority to fire political appointees. Firing political appointees is not indicative of totalitarianism. It is a common practice.
My friend also highlighted Trump’s supposedly fascist traits:
- Militarism (fascist) – Re-Naming the DOD to The Department of War
- using National Guard in cities.
- (Ultra)Nationalism (fascist) – America First, international isolation, unilateral tariffs, ignoring allies in favor of a unilateral approach.
Renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War, the name it had for most of its existence, the name it possessed when President Lincoln and his team of rivals ran it, is not fascist. This seems like grasping for straws.
The National Guard has been used in DC to support the police to alleviate crime. It is totally legal. How is this fascist? Policing is a necessary function of society.
Tariffs are fascist? How do you figure? Nearly every country implements them. They are nothing new to our country as well.
Isolationism is a policy preference of many former presidents. It is not exactly fascist. Also, I do not label Trump an isolationist.
Finally, why do Democrats hate the phrase: “America First”? Why do they refuse to root for our own team? Where does this view originate? I cannot fathom how this phrase is considered objectionable, much less fascist.
Media Control?
He drones on with more examples of “suppression of his opposition”, totalitarian and fascist tactics apparently:
- Trumps on statements on his opponents (he hates them);
- Stephen Millers declaration: “the Democractic party is not a political party – it is a domestic extremist organization”;
- demands on journalist to comply (i.e. Pentagon); law suits to intimidate
Hatred of your opposition is not good, but it is also not equivalent to suppression. Was it suppression when Speaker Pelosi called President Trump vile and the worst person on earth?
Ok, Stephen Miller called the Democrat Party extremist. Countless Democrats have (for years) called President Trump and Republicans Nazis. My friend himself called President Trump totalitarian and fascist. Are those not examples of extremism?
Trump can demand journalists comply, but they are unlikely to heed him. They do not respect or fear him. Furthermore, antagonism towards media is common. President Adams championed the Sedition Act to suppress media critics. Adams was a founding father, hardly a fascist.
The Obama Administration was very intolerant of journalists. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-may-5-2019-1.5121509/barack-obama-was-a-greater-enemy-of-the-free-press-than-trump-michael-s-essay-1.5121514
Obama’s justice department tapped reporters’ phones, dragged reporters into court, and prosecuted three times as many cases targeting leakers than all previous administrations combined.
And lawsuits are as traditionally American as apple pie. 60 Minutes‘ edits of Kamala Harris interview, designed to protect her during the height of the presidential campaign were egregious and correctly spotlighted by the president. https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/media/cbs-releases-unedited-video-of-60-minutes-interview-with-kamala-harris/
Kamala Harris gave a meandering, 179-word answer on Israel that “60 Minutes” cut to just 20 words, according to transcripts released Wednesday by the Federal Communications Commission.
The BBC recently recanted a ridiculously biased splice of Trump’s January 6 speech. https://nypost.com/2025/11/03/us-news/bbc-materially-misled-viewers-by-deceptively-editing-trump-jan-6-speech-for-documentary-whistleblower/
The documentary – “Trump: A Second Chance?” – aired on the BBC’s current events program, “Panorama,” last October and “materially misled viewers” by splicing together clips of Trump’s speech at the “Stop the Steal” rally to make it seem like he incited the riot at the US Capitol, according to Prescott.
Here are the actual words used to “incite” this riot
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” President Trump, January 6, 2021
Media biases in these instances are egregious, and the president is justified to sue over these irresponsible acts. Furthermore, how is any of this related to fascism and totalitarianism? I do not see the connections.
Are These Illegal Orders?
Next, I received a list of more totalitarian and fascist actions:
- firing of federal employees
- deporting American citizens without due process
- attacks on ships in international waters, killing innocent people at sea
Firing federal employees is fascist? I work for the federal government myself, so I know few were actually fired. Most who left took a generous buyout. Some were fired and then brought back. The few who actually lost jobs were done so legally. This claim is nonsense.
I had not previously heard of American citizens being deported, but I found this story of 12 deported citizens: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-look-at-the-u-s-citizens-who-have-been-deported-by-the-trump-administration-so-far/ar-AA1EfDov. My friend assumes the worst, of course, but I assume this is unintentional. This mistake can and likely will be fixed; deporting American citizens is not a fascist administration goal. Again, we have a difference of opinion. We need evidence of intent before labeling this fascist. He just says it is so.
The story regarding attacks on drug traffickers at sea has gained traction following the legislators initial appeal. First, let us remember these folks were drug runners, not boy scouts. The war on drugs has become an actual war, a war against terrorists importing illegal drugs which have harmed/killed millions of Americans. This action seems wholly justified to protect American citizens.
To support claims of rampant illegal orders emanating from the Trump Administration, a story in the Washington Post said two survivors in an attack, clinging to driftwood, were ruthlessly gunned down by the American military. This would likely be a violation of the Geneva Convention, but that story was rebutted by none other than New York Times a few days later. How interesting it is when progressive one-channel media debates itself!
A few years ago, the Obama administration accidentally killed American citizens abroad.
On May 22, 2013, the Obama administration “formally acknowledged for the first time that it had killed four American citizens in drone strikes outside the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq” since 2009, The New York Times said in a news story posted online that day.
The acknowledgement came in a letter signed by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent that day to the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman:
The Obama administration, in fact, killed many foreigners in the Middle East via drones. The Obama administration also bombed Libya for months without Congress invoking the War Powers Act.
Are these actions comparable to killing drug lords at sea? Why does my friend complain only when President Trump initiates actions?
Tired Old Tropes
My friend throws out this retread as well:
He also, is using his office to amass financial wealth (mid east real-estate deals, crypto deals, hawking of many personal items: watches, bibles, coins, etc.; this is what Putin has done in Russia).
Trump was already famous and very wealthy before entering office. He was 68 when beginning his first presidential run. Most men his age would not tackle a new career at 68; they would retire to dote on grandkids, travel the world, relax and enjoy life.
Trump doesn’t need more money or fame. Clinton, Obama, Biden and others became rich while in or after leaving office. Are they excluded from criticism? It’s only wrong when Trump does a thing apparently.
Yes, Trump hawked items for his political campaigns. It is tacky, but not illegal.
My friend rehashed this old trope also:
- There is also his obvious admiration of dictators around the globe (Putin, Kim Jong Un, Orban, etc
Orban is not a dictator. He was elected. Trump developed relationships with Un and Putin because he must negotiate with them. I believe he is not emulating them. He may respect, but certainly does not admire them. Many US presidents have cozied up to sleazy dictators throughout our history. This is nothing unique.
Summary
My friend’s charges are a mish-mash of opinion along with actions bizarrely labeled fascist or totalitarian, and actions in common with many other presidential administrations. These actions are not commensurate with the serious allegations made. I understand the dislike for Trump and his policies, but none of his actions warrants the dangerous interference in our military order by these legislators.
Dave https://seek-the-truth.com/about/
https://seek-the-truth.com/category/elections/
https://seek-the-truth.com
Seek the Truth 