The national back-and-forth over what public leaders can or shouldn’t say about “illegal orders” has dominated headlines for days. A single video set off a cascade of political responses, counter-videos, legal commentary, and statements from retired leaders and veteran groups.
Everyone seems to have weighed in—except the people who actually live under the UCMJ.
Currently Serving Troops are the One Group You Don’t Hear From
Not because they’re disinterested. Not because they’re uninformed. But because they legally cannot enter the public debate.
And that silence matters far more than the political noise around it.
This article isn’t about which side is right or wrong. It’s about what isn’t being talked about: the impact on today’s highly trained, highly educated force—and the danger of others speaking for them while they bear all of the risk.
A Debate About Troops Without the Troops
Every voice in this controversy, from politicians to commentators, has an avenue by which they can talk about this. They can interpret the UCMJ, frame the discussion, and declare what they believe “the troops” think. As a retired military member, I certainly have my opinions on the matter.
But active-duty service members do not have that luxury.
- They cannot clarify what their training actually says.
- They cannot correct public misunderstandings.
- They cannot express how this debate feels from the inside.
- They cannot push back on anyone mischaracterizing their responsibilities.
And yet, the national conversation keeps invoking them, as though everyone knows what currently serving troops think. There’s real danger in that.
Anytime someone speaks “on behalf” of the force, but isn’t part of it, they’re shaping a narrative that the people most affected cannot correct. Worse, it turns service members into political props without giving them the ability to clarify or contest the message. When those interpretations are wrong, the people who live under the law, not the ones holding the microphone (or in this case, making videos), are the ones who face the consequences.
A Highly Educated, Highly Trained Force Watching Others Define Its Duties
One major aspect in the public debate is the notion that service members passively react to leadership or blindly follow orders. The opposite is true.
In fact, the U.S. military is one of the most educated, rigorously trained, and professionally developed forces in the world. In fact, across the services:
- A majority of enlisted members have college credits or degrees.
- Many senior NCOs hold bachelor’s and master’s degrees.
- Officers graduate from institutions like the service academies, ROTC programs, or top-tier OCS/OTS pipelines.
- PME instruction across all ranks emphasizes ethics, judgment, lawful authority, and critical thinking.
These are not people who “don’t know any better.” They deeply understand the moral and legal obligations tied to orders.
That’s why this moment is so unusual: a highly trained, highly educated force is being talked about, sometimes inaccurately, by people who do not share their current constraints or their risks.
Where the Confusion Really Lands: Inside the Force
Public arguments rarely translate cleanly into military environments. Inside the formation, troops are asking questions they aren’t able to ask publicly:
- Is the guidance changing, or is the noise outside just loud?
- If political leaders disagree publicly, which interpretation is the right one?
- Is it even safe to talk about this?
- Does this change what we’re taught?
Those questions aren’t partisan. They’re professional.
But troops can only ask them behind closed doors, because speaking publicly, even if it is to clear up confusion, could risk discipline, or at minimum, be perceived as political involvement.
Meanwhile, outside voices continue describing what “the troops” supposedly think without having to face the consequences of being wrong.
Where It Hits Most: Training, PME, and Commissioning Pipelines
In the military’s training ecosystem (basic training, ROTC, OTS/OCS, the academies, NCO academies, and PME institutions), unlawful orders are not debated for political meaning. They are treated as legal fact.
Students study topics like the UCMJ, the law of armed conflict (LOAC), command responsibility, ROE case studies, and historical examples where individuals were held accountable
These lessons are not gray. They are not meant to shift with politics. But now, instructors across the services are encountering a new reality: the public conversation outside the gates is influencing the confidence of those inside them.
The instruction hasn’t changed. The law hasn’t changed. But public interpretation has, and it creates friction that training alone can’t eliminate.
The Double Bind Just Got Tighter
Troops already shoulder an unenviable legal truth:
- If they follow an unlawful order, they may be punished.
- If they refuse an order later deemed lawful, they may also be punished.
This is why clarity from leadership, both civilian and military, is so important. But the debate outside the force has created an environment where even discussing unlawful orders is being characterized in different, conflicting ways. And as that conversation gets louder, the people most vulnerable to misinterpretation are the ones unable to participate.
That’s the danger of others speaking for currently serving troops: the commentary is free, but the consequences aren’t. The risks fall entirely on the uniformed members who cannot respond.
The Missing Voice: Those Who Actually Carry the Responsibility
In private spaces, troops are likely thinking things like: What happens when it’s me making that decision?”; Does the public debate change the way people see what I’m trained to do?; and Who’s speaking for us, and are they getting it right?”
These are not political fears. They are professional, ethical, and operational concerns. But in the public conversation, the force’s silence creates a vacuum, one quickly filled by others offering interpretations that the active-duty members can’t confirm, challenge, or correct.
The people who bear the burden are the people with no public voice.
This Isn’t About Sides. It’s About Stability and Trust.
Regardless of who says what publicly, the military depends on the stability of the oath and the law. Service members need confidence that the rules they train under remain consistent, the UCMJ doesn’t fluctuate with public debate, and their responsibilities are grounded in law, not commentary.
The political world can debate conclusions and messaging. But the impact of that debate lands squarely on the force. That’s what’s missing from the national conversation. The recognition that the people most affected cannot speak, and the people doing the talking do not share their risk.
What the Force Needs Now
They don't need political agreement. Not another round of rhetoric. Not speculation about motives or messaging.
What the force needs is clarity:
- The oath hasn’t changed.
- The legal standard hasn’t changed.
- Their training still holds.
- And the expectations the nation has of them remain constant.
The debate outside the gates may continue, but the duty inside them hasn’t shifted. Because at the end of the day, the people who pay the price for confusion aren’t the ones on TV or in videos, they’re the ones in uniform.
The most highly trained, highly educated, highly responsible group in this entire conversation. And the only group with no voice in it.
