As a veteran and former naval officer, I commend Sen. Mark Kelly and former military veterans in Congress for reminding us that pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a member of the U.S. armed forces has the legal obligation and the right to refuse an illegal order. Under the UCMJ, service members are required to obey legal orders. That obligation does not apply to illegal orders.
Sen. Kelly, a retired Navy captain, was not only exercising his right to free speech, but his patriotic duty when he told troops: “Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders.“
President Trump’s attack on Sen. Kelly accusing him of seditious remarks is consistent with his disrespect for the UCMJ and his disdain of the right to free speech.
What was the rationale for Kelly’s timely public statement? There is an increased fear that our troops will be asked by the president to commit illegal acts in the future and Kelly and others are well aware of that possibility. It is also clear that the rule of law is under daily attack by the Trump administration and what better way to attack the rule of law than with troops.
Defense Secretary Hegseth in his brief tenure has fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The chief of naval operations and the vice chief of staff of the Air Force together with three other generals and admirals and proposes a 20% reduction of four-star generals and admirals in the foreseeable future. According to The Wall Street Journal, Hegseth also asked Adm. Alvin Alvin Holsey, head of U.S. Southern Command to resign. Hegseth reportedly clashed with Holsey over the legality of military strikes on boats allegedly carrying drugs to the United States. These actions are the result of a stated effort by Hegseth to purge senior military leaders who do not align with the administration’s vision.
One does not become an admiral or general without making important contributions to the defense of our country. Veterans understand the importance of military leadership. The departure of these patriotic Americans has weakened our country’s defense and has politicized the military in potentially frightening ways. The president’s recent deployment of National Guard troops to American cities is arguably a violation of the law and a harbinger of continued misuse of military personnel.
Many have criticized the rationale for military strikes against vessels suspected by the United States of transporting illegal drugs. To date, 21 “kinetic strikes” have resulted in 83 deaths, according to the Trump administration. The victims were alleged narco-terrorists. However, because the strikes destroyed the vessels and everyone on board there remains no evidence or proof of the government allegations. How convenient it is to destroy all the evidence, including survivors, and then to claim that every dead person was a narco-terrorist. If these vessels were carrying illegal drugs, the appropriate way to interdict those drugs would have been for the United States Navy to board these vessels at sea. The vessels could then be searched, contraband identified and destroyed, and crew members arrested and interrogated leading, in all probability, to intelligence which would assist the government in further actions to stem the flow of illegal drugs to the United States. An additional advantage to this strategy would be the ability to publicize the capture of identifiable illegal drugs and actual narco-terrorists by name.
While it’s nice to know that the president is concerned about the entry of illegal drugs into the U.S., he owes all of us an explanation as to why he recently pardoned Orlando Hernandez, the former president of Honduras, who was convicted in 2024 of conspiring to import a massive amount of cocaine into the U.S. and was sentenced to 45 years in federal prison. Perhaps, the pardon was a holiday message to drug traffickers.
On Nov. 28, 2025, The Washington Post reported that Secretary Hegseth ordered Special Operations to kill two survivors of a Sept. 2, 2025, attack on a small boat off the coast of Venezuela. Hegsmith denied the claim and then the administration released ever changing explanations for the tragedy which included a bizarre reference to the right to “kinetically” kill all the survivors of the attack. The White House said Adm. Frank Bradley gave the order and that it was lawful. Bradley supported that version of events in testimony before members of Congress last week. It is important to note that the UCMJ classifies the unlawful killing of a human being without justification or excuse as murder. It states further that an order that is patently illegal, such as an order to murder defenseless persons would not be considered a lawful command and that military members have a duty to refuse to obey such an illegal order.
It is encouraging that both Democrats and Republicans in leadership positions have expressed serious concern about the Hegseth allegations and the unauthorized attacks in the Caribbean and that they have jointly agreed to a thorough investigation of these issues.
Sen. Kelly’s remarks were indeed prescient. In summary, the UCMJ governs military behavior and protects not only the citizens of the United States, but also defenseless “alleged” enemies.
This is a contributed opinion column. Anthony M. Muir is a former officer in the U.S. Navy. The views expressed in this piece are those of its individual author, and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of this publication. Do you have a perspective to share? Learn more about how we handle guest opinion submissions at themorningcall.com/opinions.
