Hegseth criticizes unlawful military orders from a speech made in 2016.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently resurfaced in headlines due to a speech from 2016 in which he suggested that military personnel should not comply with “unlawful orders.” This statement echoes similar sentiments expressed recently by a coalition of Democratic lawmakers, who have underlined the importance of obeying only lawful commands from superiors. Hegseth’s remarks, brought to light by a video released by CNN, were made at the Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley, where he praised the U.S. military’s ethical standards as superior to those of potential adversaries. He emphasized the military’s training to resist orders that violate established rules of engagement, stating that there are consequences for carrying out unlawful acts, regardless of the source of the command.
The Pentagon characterized Hegseth’s statements as “uncontroversial,” reinforcing the notion that military personnel are obliged to reject orders that contravene the law of armed conflict. This defense of Hegseth’s comments draws parallels to a recent joint statement made by Senator Mark Kelly, a Navy veteran, along with five other Democratic leaders who have both military and national security backgrounds. These lawmakers caution active-duty service members against following unconstitutional directives, asserting no one is obligated to obey orders that lack legal authority.
In a rapid response to the Democrats’ warning, President Trump rebuked them, labeling their comments as treasonous and threatening serious repercussions. Hegseth further accused these lawmakers of engaging in “seditious” behavior, implying a disregard for national solidarity. In contrast, Senator Kelly accused Hegseth of merely seeking to align himself with the Trump administration after making similar assertions. Kelly’s statements reflect a growing frustration within military and political circles regarding the implications of the Trump administration’s directives, which have faced scrutiny both legally and ethically.
Concerns over the administration’s military decisions have sparked significant debate, particularly concerning its use of National Guard forces and active-duty personnel in domestic operations aimed at curbing illegal immigration. Critics signal the potential implications of military actions that could be perceived as overreach or unlawful, particularly in light of recent lethal operations targeting alleged drug traffickers. An incident on September 2, which involved a follow-up strike that reportedly resulted in civilian casualties, has drawn severe criticisms and could be deemed a war crime by international observers.
As the fallout continues, lawmakers on both sides are preparing to investigate the legality and ethical repercussions of these military operations, which may result in Hegseth and other Pentagon officials being called to testify about their decisions under oath. The intersection of military ethics, legality, and political discourse remains a complex and pressing issue as the Trump administration confronts scrutiny over its military strategies.
