Letters to the Editor published on November 30, 2025.
In recent discussions surrounding the obligations of military personnel, former President Donald Trump and certain allies have claimed that Democratic lawmakers who remind military members of their duty to reject illegal orders are engaging in “seditious behavior.” This assertion has sparked considerable debate, particularly regarding the legal and ethical responsibilities of soldiers to resist such commands. It is imperative to clarify that the duty of military personnel to disobey unlawful orders is a foundational principle of military conduct, rooted in both domestic law and international norms.
Historical precedents, notably the Nuremberg Trials following World War II, underscored the legal ramifications associated with following illegal orders. Many defendants attempted to justify their heinous actions through the defense of “just following orders.” However, the judges decisively rejected this defense, firmly establishing that illegal orders do not constitute a valid justification for unlawful acts. The precedent set by these trials remains relevant today; military personnel in the United States are likewise obligated to refuse compliance with unlawful commands, irrespective of their source.
Recently, six Democratic members of Congress, all possessing military or intelligence backgrounds, reiterated this critical responsibility, prompting backlash and the potential for federal investigations. Critics of these lawmakers argue that their advisories undermine military discipline, but legal experts maintain that serving members of the armed forces have a duty to uphold the law and protect human rights. The distinction between lawful and unlawful orders is critical, and soldiers must be equipped to recognize and reject the latter.
As the conversation around military integrity continues, it becomes increasingly essential to emphasize that accountability and adherence to lawful conduct cannot be compromised. The obligation to disobey illegal orders transcends political affiliations and is central to maintaining the moral authority of military institutions.
Moreover, on a different legislative front, Pennsylvania has recently introduced its first earned income tax credit aimed at assisting lower-income workers, marking a significant move toward bipartisan reform. This newly implemented credit is designed to complement the longstanding federal Earned Income Tax Credit, allowing tax refunds to eligible workers. Although set at a modest level of 10% of the federal benefit, it represents a meaningful step in improving economic support for working-class families and addressing ongoing barriers within local tax systems. Reforms to enhance accessibility to these credits are critical for ensuring financial security and promoting upward mobility among vulnerable demographics.
Media News Source underscores the importance of these discussions and legislative changes, which have far-reaching implications for ethical governance and social responsibility in both military and civil affairs.
