Did two U.S. senators and four representatives urge American soldiers and intelligence officers to disobey legal orders from their commanders and is their advice seditious and traitorous behavior? No, that's not true: Democratic Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, and Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan recorded a video with the message that American military members "must refuse illegal orders," not legal ones. U.S. law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice require the military personnel to obey all legal orders, but carrying out illegal orders can result in criminal convictions.
The claim appeared across social platforms, including in a post (archived here) published on X on November 20, 2025. The caption above an image of Benedict Arnold, read:
Several members of congress suggested the Military refuse Legal orders. This is Seditious and Traitorous Behavior. These same Politicians are now hiding behind their military record.
Let me remind you, that before Major General Benedict Arnold's treason, he was a decorated hero.
This is what the post looked like at the time of writing:
(Image source: Lead Stories screenshot of X.com)
Benedict Arnold was a general in the Continental Army of the United States who defected to the British after he was reprimanded by a court martial trial in 1780 for two decisions he made as the military governor of Philadelphia concerning a ship and public wagons that carried goods he owned. His anger over the reprimand led to his defection to the British Army, which sealed his historical reputation as a traitor to his country.
The claim that the six members of Congress, all veterans of the military or intelligence agencies, are traitors for telling current service member and intel agents they have a duty to disobey legal orders is false. They only referenced illegal orders in their video, which was posted (archived here) by Rep. Slotkin on her X account on November 18, 2025.
We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.
-- Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) November 18, 2025
The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.
Don't give up the ship. pic.twitter.com/N8lW0EpQ7r
This is the transcript of the video following their personal introductions:
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution. Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders, you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant, but whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army or Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical, and know that we have your back, because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution and who we are as Americans. Don't give up, don't give up, don't give up, don't give up the ship.
(Image source: montage of Lead Stories screenshots of X.com)
Only "illegal" orders are referenced in the video.
(Image source: Lead Stories screenshot of X.com)
The duty to obey legal orders and not carry out illegal orders -- those that would violate the U.S. Constitution or laws -- began with the initial adoption of the oath of enlistment for service members in 1789, and it evolved only slightly in the centuries since. Every version has included a pledge to support the U.S. Constitution. It was later revised to include a pledge to obey all orders from superiors "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The current oath (archived here) reads:
I, _____, 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.
(Image source: Lead Stories screenshot of army.mil)
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, (archived here) which is the guide for all military members, is clear that everyone in uniform must obey all legal orders from a superior.
(Image source: Lead Stories screenshot of Uniform Code of Military Justice)
An historical example of how the duty to disobey illegal orders by a superior is enforced is demonstrated in the court martial of Army Lt. William Calley (UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM L. CALLEY, JR.) the U.S. Court of Military Appeals issued its decision (archived here) on December 21, 1973 upholding the Calley's conviction for murdering "22 infants, children, women, and old men, and of assault with intent to murder a child of about 2 years of age" in the South Vietnamese village My Lai in March 1968. Calley's defense was that his company commander, a captain, ordered him to take no prisoners and kill all of the villagers as they burned the village. The captain denied during the trial giving the order. The appeals panel concluded that Calley's defense that he was following an order as a good soldier should was wrong, because he should have known killing unarmed prisoners is illegal:
In the stress of combat, a member of the armed forces cannot reasonably be expected to make a refined legal judgment and be held criminally responsible if he guesses wrong on a question as to which there may be considerable disagreement. But there is no disagreement as to the illegality of the order to kill in this case. For 100 years, it has been a settled rule of American law that even in war the summary killing of an enemy, who has submitted to, and is under, effective physical control, is murder. Appellate defense counsel [...] say that Lieutenant Calley should not be held accountable for the men, women and children he killed because the court-martial could have found that he was a person of "commonest understanding" and such a person might not know what our law provides; that his captain had ordered him to kill these unarmed and submissive people and he only carried out that order as a good disciplined soldier should.
Whether Lieutenant Calley was the most ignorant person in the United States Army in Vietnam, or the most intelligent, he must be presumed to know that he could not kill the people involved here.
While the video by the members of Congress does not address how a service member can determine if an order is illegal, their message is not contrary to what all new recruits are taught in basic training.
