Selective Principles: When Refusing Illegal Orders Depends on Who’s Speaking

There is a glaring hypocrisy emerging in the way some political figures talk about obedience, the law, and the Constitution—one that becomes especially clear when comparing past legal arguments to present political outrage.¹

In 2024, Pam Bondi, acting as an attorney for the America First Policy Institute, supported a friend-of-the-court brief connected to a U.S. Supreme Court case that explicitly stated that military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders.² This position reflects a long-standing and uncontroversial principle of U.S. military law: service members must refuse illegal orders and are obligated to uphold the Constitution above any individual leader.³

Fast-forward to November 2025, and outrage was directed at Senator Mark Kelly—a retired U.S. Navy captain and combat veteran—for appearing in a video reminding service members of that same principle.⁴ Kelly emphasized that members of the armed forces swear an oath to the Constitution and are duty-bound to refuse unlawful orders. Following the release of the video, political criticism intensified, and the Department of Defense announced it was reviewing the matter.⁵

That contradiction is difficult to ignore.

When the principle that soldiers must refuse illegal orders was invoked in legal arguments aligned with Donald Trump’s interests, it was treated as sound constitutional reasoning. When the identical principle was voiced years later by a political opponent of Trump, it was framed by some as dangerous, disloyal, or even “seditious.”⁶ The law did not change. The Constitution did not change. Only the political target changed.

This is not fundamentally about Pam Bondi or Mark Kelly as individuals. It reflects a broader and troubling pattern: constitutional norms are embraced when they serve one political figure or movement, but attacked when they are perceived as challenging that figure. That is not how the rule of law functions. Either constitutional principles apply consistently, or they cease to be principles at all.

If acknowledging that service members must refuse illegal orders was legitimate when advanced in Supreme Court–related legal arguments in 2024, then it remains legitimate when stated by a retired naval officer in November 2025. Weaponizing outrage against those who repeat that principle is not patriotism. It is political expediency masquerading as principle.


---

Footnotes

1. Rule of law and consistent application of constitutional principles are foundational concepts in American constitutional governance.


2. “Must the Military Disobey Unlawful Orders? Pam Bondi Has Said Yes,” GV Wire, December 8, 2025.


3. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Articles 90–92; lawful versus unlawful orders.


4. “Pentagon investigating Sen. Mark Kelly after ‘you can refuse illegal orders’ video,”  
AZPM News, November 24, 2025.


5. “Pentagon launches review into Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly over video to troops,” ABC News, November 24, 2025.


6. “Pentagon says it is investigating US senator over ‘illegal orders’ video,” PBS NewsHour, November 24, 2025.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When Duty Collided with Conscience

Image
On July 1, 2026, Air Force Major Jason Watson made a decision that will likely define the rest of his military career. While wearing his Air Force service uniform, he stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol holding a sign calling for the impeachment, conviction, and removal of President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. He also publicly criticized the administration's military actions, saying he believed they were unconstitutional. By his own statements, Watson believed he had a moral duty to speak out. He knew there would probably be consequences, but he chose to protest anyway as an act of civil disobedience. One thing that has confused a lot of people is why he was arrested. Some have said he had permission to be there and then somehow lost it. That's not exactly what happened. Representative Al Green escorted Watson onto the House steps. Under Capitol rules, demonstrations are allowed there only under certain conditions, including when a member of Congres...
Read more

Trump’s Iran Strikes: Unconstitutional, Dangerous, and a Christian Call for Accountability

Donald Trump has proven to be a dangerously impulsive leader, and his recent actions reveal a pattern of narcissistic decision-making that puts the country and the world at risk. From unilateral military strikes to flouting constitutional processes, his behavior demonstrates a disregard for law, accountability, and the perspectives of allies. Leadership of this magnitude demands wisdom, restraint, and a commitment to the rule of law — qualities Trump has repeatedly shown he cannot exercise responsibly. For the safety and stability of the nation, he must be removed from the office of the President of the United States as quickly as possible, along with enablers like JD Vance and Mike Johnson, whose support empowers these reckless tendencies. Donald Trump — in the name of the United States — recently launched military strikes against Iran, escalating a conflict that already threatens global stability and regional security. These actions were taken without formal authorization from Congre...
Read more

DHS’s Subpoena Campaign Threatens First Amendment Freedoms

In a constitutional federal representative democracy like the USA, government officials are supposed to protect the rights of the people, not intimidate them. Yet the Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Kristi Noem, is aggressively trying to identify Americans who criticize ICE and its enforcement actions. This is not just an overreach; it is a direct attack on the First Amendment. DHS has issued hundreds of administrative subpoenas to major tech platforms, including Google, Meta, Reddit, and Discord, demanding the names, email addresses, and other identifying information of users who post critical content about ICE¹. These subpoenas do not require prior judicial approval, allowing the agency to bypass the usual legal safeguards and target critics with alarming impunity². This is an abuse of bureaucratic power, and it chills dissent. First Amendment law clearly protects both speech and the anonymity of speakers. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that anon...
Read more