One of the most frequent calls received since Trump’s return to office has been from people who saw the GI Rights Hotline on social media and wanted to confirm that we’re “real” before they re-post our number.

People are understandably worried about the military being turned against citizens, in part due to Trump’s suggestion that he would use troops on “the enemy within.” People are hoping that US military members will refuse any such orders.

The general consensus is that no one should follow an illegal order. As a nonprofit, we are not allowed to encourage anyone to do something illegal whether they are ordered to or otherwise. The more complicated question comes in sorting out whether a specific order will be recognized as “illegal.”

It is easy for military members to be confused about which orders are “unlawful” and which are “justified.” If a superior tells a national guard member to steal a civilian’s wallet at gunpoint, that person knows they are being ordered to do something unlawful. But when a guard member is told to pat down and check a detained person at a protest for weapons and ID, it gets cloudy. In most situations, commands will go over rules of engagement in advance, which gives concerned military members an opportunity to ask for clear guidance about any troubling scenarios. The military presumption is that orders are lawful.

The rules for court martial give clarification that refusal is at the peril of the subordinate.
(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

The rules for court martial also clarify who is the arbiter of lawfulness:
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.

The soldier or sailor who refuses an unlawful order is at the mercy of the political realities of today’s government. If an immediate supervisor gives a clearly unlawful order, the presumption is that people higher in the chain of command will recognize the unlawfulness of that order. If an illegal order comes from the commander-in-chief, it is harder to presume that the same lawless system that gave the order will turn around and act lawfully to recognize the person’s right to refuse it. Furthermore we are unable to give any assurance that the courts or Congress will intervene to protect people.

When military members were punished and some even discharged for refusing to take the COVID vaccine, many politicians rushed to their defense and supported their disobedience; now there is an offer to reinstate them with back pay. This indicates further the political nature of these matters in today’s climate. So it’s really complicated when we add the extra consideration of which political party aligns with the order someone is questioning.

Given all this, we still try to help people make their own informed decision about the different risks and outcomes of refusing or following any particular order. The counseling we provide is non-directive, meaning that we don’t tell anyone what to do or not do. We do give them as much information as we can so that they can consider all their options and make their best, informed decision. We hope to empower all of our callers to reflect on and decide how to act when questions arise for them in the midst of these rapidly changing times.