COLUMN: The military oath

So we all know from the get-go, the oath of enlistment is the same across all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. It is codified in 10 U.S.C. §502. 

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will 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. So help me God.” 

Today (20 Nov 2025), six Members of Congress released a public service announcement directed at America’s military personnel. Their message was simple, lawful, and rooted in the very foundation of military service: obey lawful orders, refuse unlawful ones. One of the Members stated, “Our oath is to the Constitution, not to any individual. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine must remember that they are bound by law to refuse unlawful commands.” Another added, “This is not politics. This is the law. No one, not even the Commander-in-Chief, can compel you to break it.” 

The President responded with fury. In a series of posts on Truth Social, he accused these Members of Congress of treason and sedition. In one particularly chilling post, he wrote: “These six traitors should be hanged for sedition. They are undermining me as Commander-in-Chief and must pay the price.” Such language is not only unprecedented but dangerous, as it weaponizes threats against elected officials for affirming the very laws that govern military conduct. 

To understand the gravity of these accusations, we must look at the definitions of treason and sedition. Treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution and codified in 18 U.S.C. §2381, consists only of levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort. Sedition, under 18 U.S.C. §2384, is a conspiracy to overthrow or oppose the government by force, or to hinder the execution of U.S. law by force. Neither definition applies to Members of Congress reminding troops of their legal obligations. 

The legal framework for military personnel is quite clear. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), service members must obey lawful orders but are prohibited from following unlawful ones. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to any individual leader. Practical considerations make this difficult in real time: soldiers must weigh the “manifest illegality” of an order, seek guidance from Judge Advocates (military lawyers), and escalate concerns up the chain of command when legality is unclear. 

Examples of unlawful orders include directing attacks on civilians, ordering torture of prisoners, conducting summary executions, or interfering with lawful political activity. Service members determine legality in real time by applying their training, rules of engagement, and the manifest illegality test. If an order is obviously illegal—such as “shoot unarmed civilians” — they are duty-bound to refuse. 

History provides powerful examples of refusal. In Vietnam, helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson intervened to stop the My Lai massacre, refusing to participate in the killing of civilians. During the Korean War, soldiers who refused orders to execute prisoners were later vindicated. At Abu Ghraib, some military police refused to participate in prisoner abuse and reported misconduct. Survey evidence today shows that four out of five service members understand they must disobey illegal orders, reflecting a deep awareness of their oath to the Constitution. 

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 10 U.S.C. §1034, provides legal safeguards for those who report wrongdoing. It prohibits retaliation against service members who make protected communications to Congress, Inspectors General, or other authorized officials. Violators can face court-martial, administrative discipline, or removal from command. Service members who suffer reprisal may be reinstated with back pay. Yet retaliation remains a risk, and many Americans are unaware of these protections. 

The President’s threats are significant because they undermine democratic norms and attempt to criminalize lawful oversight. While he has not explained his motives, history shows that presidents have occasionally used extreme language to rally supporters or delegitimize opponents. Andrew Jackson railed against “traitors” in Congress who opposed him. Richard Nixon branded critics as enemies of the state. But threatening the execution of elected officials for affirming military law crosses a line that endangers both democracy and civil-military relations. 

The factual reality remains unchanged: military personnel must follow lawful orders but are never required to obey unlawful ones. That principle is not partisan. It is the bedrock of American military law, the safeguard of constitutional government, and the shield against tyranny. 

Duane Pitts
Moses Lake 

Editor's Note: To view the full video Mr. Pitts discusses in the column above, go to https://bit.ly/ORDERSVID.