The Steady State Stands With Six
The Steady State—representing more than 360 former senior national-security, intelligence, diplomatic, military, law-enforcement, and homeland-security officials—strongly supports the six Members of Congress, all defense or intelligence veterans who this week released a video reminding U.S. military and intelligence personnel that they must not follow unlawful orders.[i]
This principle is not controversial. It is not partisan. It is not new. And it is the bedrock of lawful civilian control of the military. Yet the administration responded by labeling these Members “insurrectionists” and “treasonous.” These accusations are false, reckless, and themselves dangerous, because they recast a foundational legal rule as political dissent.
To avoid distortion, we quote directly from the public transcript of their statement:
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the Intelligence Community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under tremendous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and Intelligence Community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend that Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution are not just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that this is a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you are serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical and know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our law, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don’t give up the ship.
There is no call for rebellion, resistance, mutiny, or disobedience of lawful authority—only a restatement of what every officer and enlisted servicemember already knows: illegal orders can and should be refused. This is not a political opinion. It is doctrine. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 90–92[1], servicemembers must obey lawful orders. The word “lawful” is not decorative—it is the controlling condition. The Army’s Law of Land Warfare (FM 6-27 / formerly FM 27-10), the definitive articulation of U.S. obligations under the Law of Armed Conflict, makes this explicit. Pages 8–13 state in relevant part[2]:
8-75. The fact that a person acted pursuant to orders of his or her Government or of a superior does not relieve that person from responsibility under international law, provided it was possible in fact for that person to make a moral choice (see DOD Law of War Manual, 18.22.4). Under the RCM and MMC, it is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful (RCM 916(d); MMC pt. II, Rule 916(d)). An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime (for example, an order directing the murder of a civilian, a noncombatant, or a combatant who is hors de combat, or the abuse or torture of a prisoner) (see, for example, MCM pt. IV, para. 14c(2)(a)(i)). The fact that an offense was committed pursuant to superior orders may also be considered as mitigation to reduce the level of punishment (see, for example, United States v. Sawada, V U.N. Law Reports 7-8, 13-22; ICTY art. 7(4)). [emphasis added]
This language has been in U.S. military doctrine for generations. It is identical in spirit to the rules applied at My Lai, Abu Ghraib, and throughout the training of every officer candidate.
Civilian control of the military does not mean unquestioning obedience to any command; it means obedience to lawful civilian authority. A president who attempts to use the armed forces illegally—against political opponents, against the electoral process, or contrary to statute—acts outside constitutional authority. In such cases, military and intelligence personnel have both a right and a duty to refuse.
The Steady State’s earlier Open Letter to Former Generals and Flag Officers warned of increasing pressure on military leaders to engage in political, partisan, or unlawful actions. That letter called on senior leaders—active and retired—to reaffirm the nonpartisan principle that their loyalty is to the Constitution:
The decisions that may soon rest upon your shoulders will determine whether the nation you have long defended continues as the constitutional republic we have all sworn to serve — or whether history will look to the military and ask whether its leaders stood firm when democracy most needed them.
This week’s statement by the six Members of Congress is fully consistent with that call. It is fully consistent with U.S. military law. And it is fully consistent with the oath every official takes. Accusing elected Members of Congress of “treason” or “insurrection” for restating binding military law, misinforms the public, endangers the professional ethics of the armed forces, signals that lawful restraint is now treated as partisan, and creates incentives for abuse of the chain of command. The United States has long relied on a military that is apolitical, professional, and governed by law. Undermining those norms risks real and lasting damage.
The Steady State commends the Members who spoke clearly, calmly, and correctly about the limits of presidential authority and the obligations of all who swear an oath to the Constitution. Their message was not radical. It was not partisan. It was, and is, American law. Hold Fast.
[1] “892. Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation Any person subject to this chapter who- (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” (emphasis added). 10 U.S.C. § 892 (2022)
[2] U.S. Dep’t of the Army, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Land Warfare (FM 6-27) (2019).
[i] Senator Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA Officer, Senator Mark Kelly, a former Navy Aviator, Representative Chris Deluzio, Representative Jason Crow of Colorado, a former Army Ranger; Representative Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, a former Navy reservist; and Representative Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, a former Air Force officer.