U.S. Military Veterans Challenge Trump’s Orders Amid Controversy

U.S. Representative Jason Crow, a decorated combat veteran, recently asserted that members of the military should refuse to follow illegal orders, igniting a fierce response from former President Donald Trump. In a video shared last week, Crow and five fellow veteran lawmakers emphasized that no service member is obligated to obey orders that violate U.S. law or the Constitution. Trump’s reaction included a social media post labeling the veterans as traitors, where he provocatively stated, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” Although he later clarified that he did not intend to call for their deaths, the incident has raised significant concerns regarding the implications of such rhetoric.

The controversy centers on the legal framework governing military conduct. According to Joseph Jordan, a former U.S. Army officer and attorney specializing in military law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice permits service members to disobey orders deemed “patently illegal,” such as those directing unlawful actions. However, he noted that disobedience could lead to court-martial, with a military judge determining the legality of orders.

In an analysis published in the New York Times, attorney David French, who also served in Iraq, mentioned that while certain actions by the military are clearly illegal, the legality of Trump’s orders—such as targeting vessels in the Caribbean suspected of drug trafficking—remains complex. French argued that Trump has placed military leaders in a difficult position, potentially implicating them in illegal activities and creating moral dilemmas for the soldiers under their command.

Historical Context of Military Ethics

Crow’s stance evokes historical parallels, particularly the infamous Sand Creek Massacre of November 29, 1864. On that day, Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer made the courageous decision to refuse orders from Colonel John Chivington, who led a surprise attack on a peaceful encampment of Cheyenne and Arapahoe people, resulting in the deaths of approximately 200 individuals, many of whom were women and children. The massacre occurred in a tense environment where relations between Native Americans and settlers were fraught, following a period of conflict and failed peace negotiations.

Chivington, who had gained fame as a Civil War hero, sought to enhance his political standing by leading the attack on the encampment. Despite the presence of the American flag among the Native Americans, his forces executed a brutal assault. The aftermath saw Chivington celebrated by some as a hero, while others, including Soule and Cramer, condemned the actions and expressed their outrage to their superiors.

In the months that followed, military hearings scrutinized the events at Sand Creek, although Soule himself was tragically assassinated in Denver the following April before he could be fully vindicated.

Legacy and Modern Implications

The legacies of both Soule and Colorado’s territorial governor, John Evans, who remained largely silent during the massacre, continue to resonate. Reports commissioned by Northwestern University and The University of Denver in 2014 assessed Evans’s role in creating the conditions that led to the massacre, ultimately concluding he bore significant responsibility.

Soule’s grave, marked by a modest tombstone alongside other veterans, contrasts sharply with Evans’s large and imposing memorial. During a recent visit, flowers and a flag adorned Soule’s grave, a testament to the respect he commands for his moral courage, while Evans’s site remained unvisited, reflecting his controversial legacy.

As the debate continues over the obligations of military personnel under potentially unlawful orders, Crow’s statements and the historical context of ethical military conduct serve as an important reminder of the enduring struggle between duty and morality within the armed forces.