Should U.S. Soldiers Disobey Illegal Orders? Yes and No

Yes, I strongly believe U S. soldiers should disobey illegal orders. But, no, soldiers can not arbitrarily decide which orders are illegal.

If every soldier made his or her own decision on which orders are illegal, chaos could erupt.

In emergency situations, success often depends on quick obedience to orders.

My Personal Perspective

I am basically a pacifist. I support the right of persons to refuse to serve in the military. I believe reasonable alternatives to military service need to be available even when a military draft is in place.

However, since I've never served in any type of military service, I'm not qualified to give an insider's perspective.

War Is Illegal

The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Act made war illegal. Most world nations agreed to it. However, that did not prevent World War II or the numerous others that have occurred since 1928.

Can a soldier refuse an order to fight in a war, because war is illegal? I would argue yes. But most  U.S. government leaders and military leaders would disagree with me.

Perhaps a solution would be to require all persons enlisting in the military to sign a statement agreeing that war is legal, and it is legal to order soldiers to fight in one.

That would certainly disqualify conscientious objectors. Furthermore, if we all became conscientious objectors, there would be no wars.

If War Is Legal

Though I consider war itself illegal, what if war is legal? Under what grounds would soldiers disobey orders?

I hope everyone would agree ordering soldiers to kill unarmed civilian children and elderly persons who offer no threat to them is incorrect.

One example of U.S. soldiers obeying orders to do this took place during the Vietnam War in what became known as the My Lai Massacre. A  PBS article [*] is one of a huge number of articles that discuss the atrocities of this event.

We may almost unanimously agree soldiers had the right to refuse the orders given during the My Lai Massacre. But what about obeying the order to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II? Scholars today still debate whether the deaths of so many people (possibly over 200,000?), including a lot of children, was justified.

Once a decision is made to go to war, it's not easy to decide which orders are legal and which are illegal.

We have federal laws, the U.S. Constitution, and common-sense moral codes. We have the U.S. Supreme Court and the President.

But when faced with the horrors of war, it's not always easy to decide which order is best for a situation, what the highest righteous authority (which I call God) desires. And I would argue obeying any order contrary to God's perfect will is immoral, wrong, and should be illegal. 

Furthermore, while Congress has the authority to declare war, often Presidents seem to usurp that authority by ordering military actions.

Does the White House, the President, have authority to decide what is legal or illegal? Are all White House orders to the military legal by virtue of the power and authority of the office?

I hope we all agree no. Definitely no. Below is a photo of the White House I took in June 2025.

If war is legal, it ought to be limited and avoided whenever possible.

Closing Thoughts

Even if we all agreed that soldiers should disobey illegal orders, we likely could not agree on which orders are illegal.

However, government orders to fire on unarmed peaceful protesters certainly seem to warrant disobedience.

Coups can occur when soldiers disobey government authorities ordering them to fire on unarmed peaceful demonstrators and instead stand up to corrupt officials.

When soldiers obey the righteous authority instead of an unrighteous government, it's a blessing.

ENDNOTE:

[*] "The My Lai Massacre"; PBS; webpage accessed January 14, 2026; https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/vietnam-my-lai-massacre/