A Higher Duty: The Military's Obligations to the Constitution

Civic duty over personal loyalty.

Now through November 8 we’re offering 30% off a premium subscription. Premium subscribers get access to exclusive benefits, like interactive Zoom calls with Garry Kasparov and other leaders in the pro-freedom movement, plus access to premium-only content.

---

Dr. Alexander Vindman is a retired US Army lieutenant colonel and former director for European Affairs on the National Security Council. His recent book, The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine examines how the “realist” thinking of multiple presidential administrations laid the foundation for the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine. He is a board member at the Renew Democracy Initiative, president of the Here Right Matters Foundation, founder of the Institute for Informed American Leadership, and senior fellow at the Kettering Foundation.

---

Last month Pete Hegseth gathered the nation’s top military leadership for a summit in Quantico, Virginia. For nearly an hour Hegseth delivered a meandering lecture to a room of senior military staff on the “Warrior Ethos” and the failures of the so-called “Woke Department”—referring to the Pentagon and the Department of Defense.

This assembly required the relocation and movement of virtually the entirety of America’s military leadership and was organized amidst increasing tensions in the Caribbean and speculation regarding offensive operations against Venezuela as well as growing tensions in Europe and the Pacific. The entire spectacle was a waste of time and served as another example of the second Trump administration’s willingness to use national security and the military to fight culture war grievances.

However, Hegseth’s stunt can also be read as an attempt by the current administration to project a sense of political control over military leadership and test the waters for a future demand of personal loyalty to Donald Trump. The message from Hegseth’s rally was that culture war and personal alignment to the political interests of the current administration take precedence over the interests of the United States and every servicemember’s oath to the constitution. In the future, officers and leaders may find themselves witnesses to illegal actions or recipients of unlawful commands.

I know that feeling—I’ve been there.

When I reported Donald Trump’s illegal attempt to use the powers of the presidency to extort the Ukrainian government and interfere in the 2020 election, I knew that I would be facing retribution from the most powerful office on earth.

The retribution levied against me in the aftermath of my testimony to Congress was partially a reflection of Trump’s frustration in failing to extort Zelenskyy, his embarrassment in having his scheme laid bare to the public, and his new political challenges brought about by his congressional impeachment.

More importantly, however, was the fact that Trump’s wrath stemmed from his indignation knowing that someone placed their oath to the Constitution and United States of America over personal loyalty to the president and his political interests. I did what was expected of any service member in my position and any apprehension I had towards blowing the whistle was outweighed by my sense of duty to this country.

Officers and leaders across the branches of our military may be forced to make similar decisions in the near future.

The current administration has already acted illegally by destroying multiple civilian vessels off the coast of Venezuela without a congressional authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) under the pretext of combating drug smuggling. Trump has openly signaled his willingness to use the military to intimidate and crack down on domestic political opposition and has set a crisis in motion by deploying the Texas National Guard to Chicago without the permission of the governor of Illinois.

These orders range from “lawful but awful” to potentially illegal, yet are all dependent on a chain of command executing the orders given by the president.

---

More from The Next Move:

Russia First

---

When orders are given, it is often individuals in the middle and lower levels of command that are forced to navigate ethical and legal dilemmas. A company commander may be given orders to fire at a crowd of demonstrators. A senior analyst in an intelligence role may be given instructions to knowingly classify civilian targets as legal combatants. An officer may be asked to provide names of fellow servicemembers suspected of holding dissenting political opinions. A judge advocate may be directed to rubber-stamp politically motivated findings from the

Department of Justice to execute unlawful orders or as evidence against military personal refusing to obey illegal orders colored lawful by dubious DOJ findings (think DOJ’s finding on the legality of torture in the George W. Bush administration).

It’s difficult to overstate the pressure that would be felt by these servicemembers placed in such compromising positions; their judgment in those moments may have drastic implications for the future of the United States and civilian-military relations for generations to come.

My guidance to any servicemembers that find themselves in such ethical dilemmas is to remember the oath that we took at the start of our service. Our loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States of America, not one man and his political interests.

Complying with the illegal or unconstitutional demands of a tyrant will neither undo the violation of our oath nor provide legal protection when this moment passes and our actions are judged in the future. Choosing to follow an illegal order to kill means committing murder, no matter who gives the command. I ask you to reflect upon your oath and consider the possibility that you may be faced with such a decision in the future. Your strength and willingness to do what is right may decide the future of our country.

For the elected officials serving in both houses of Congress during this uniquely perilous moment in American history, I ask you to consider your obligation to use your office as a counterbalance to the overreach of the current administration. This was the design of our Founding Fathers, establishing the three co-equal branches of government. Remember, the Trump era will pass and you will be judged on your actions, including whether you exercised your Constitutional authorities as a check on executive power, or whether you acted as an irrelevant bystander abrogating your responsibilities.

Moreover, uniformed members of the military are your constituents and as elected officials, it is your duty to advocate for them and represent the public interest. Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth have made their disdain for the law abundantly clear; however, the executive branch and military must comply with congressional subpoenas. The legislative branch has investigatory powers that can be used to uncover evidence regarding illegal orders from the White House to military leadership and attempts to conceal abuses of power. Additionally, I ask you to consider how the American public will view inaction in the face of tyranny during the coming midterm elections. Seven million Americans took to the streets in October and made their voices heard in a nationwide series of protests against Trump’s overreach. The October protest was itself a 50% increase in size for the prior protest just a few months prior. If this public upswell in presidential disapproval continues, anyone considered to be complicit in Trump’s excesses or an enabler of Hegseth’s attempts to reshape the military can expect sharp pushback from the public and the loss of their seat next election cycle.

---

On the fence about becoming a paid subscriber? We have a special offer to make the decision easier for you: $49 for an annual subscription—a 30% discount—now through November 8. Paid subscribers get exclusive benefits like interactive Zoom calls with Garry Kasparov.

---

More from The Next Move:

---

---

---