In 2016, during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump claimed that U.S. troops would execute his most extreme orders, some of which military experts deemed illegal. At that time, Pete Hegseth, a Fox News contributor and former Army National Guard officer, warned that service members had a duty to refuse unlawful orders from a potential President Trump. Hegseth emphasized that military personnel would not follow orders deemed illegal.

Trump faced significant criticism for proposals that military lawyers indicated would violate the laws of war, including the targeting of terrorists' families and the revival of banned torture methods. This criticism peaked during a Republican debate in March 2016, where Trump was questioned about the military's obligation to reject unlawful orders. He confidently asserted that the military would not refuse his commands. Following the debate, Hegseth reiterated his concerns, suggesting that Trump's rhetoric could complicate matters for military personnel and that the U.S. should not compromise its moral standards. Trump later attempted to clarify that he would not order military officers to disobey the law.

Recently, as Secretary of Defense, Hegseth has shifted his stance, criticizing Democratic lawmakers for raising concerns about unlawful orders in relation to military actions against alleged drug trafficking boats. He labeled several of these lawmakers as the "Seditious Six" for their public warnings to military personnel about their legal duty to reject unlawful orders, echoing his earlier statements from 2016.

In a recent incident, six Democratic lawmakers released a video urging military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. In response, Trump characterized their actions as 'seditious behavior, punishable by death.' This statement contrasts with a position taken by Pam Bondi, the attorney general, who previously asserted in a friend-of-the-court brief that military officers are obligated to disregard unlawful orders, such as those targeting nonmilitary individuals. Bondi represented the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, and emphasized that military personnel must not execute patently unlawful orders.

This brief was submitted in support of Trump’s request for immunity from prosecution related to efforts to undermine the 2020 election results. During a court hearing, a question arose regarding the potential criminal liability of a president who might order military actions against political opponents. The solicitor general, D. John Sauer, responded that such a president would not face prosecution, raising concerns about the implications of unchecked executive power. Bondi sought to mitigate the impact of this assertion by arguing that military officers would inherently refuse to comply with extreme orders, framing the hypothetical scenario as unrealistic.