Military personnel seek legal advice on whether Trump-ordered missions are lawful

Key Concepts

• Military Service Personnel Legal Advice: The need for service members to seek independent legal counsel regarding the legality of assigned missions.
• Trump Administration Missions: Specific missions assigned by the Trump administration, including strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats and domestic deployments.
• Legality of U.S. Strikes: Debate surrounding the legality of U.S. military strikes on boats in international waters, particularly concerning the justification and evidence of drugs.
• Domestic Deployments: Concerns raised by National Guard personnel regarding deployments to American cities and their legal implications.
• Complicity in Gaza: Concerns about U.S. weapons sent to Israel and potential complicity in actions in Gaza.
• The Orders Project: A nonprofit organization providing free legal advice to military personnel, independent of the Defense Department.
• Staff Officer Concerns: The role of staff officers in planning and approving missions and their concerns about being pressured to alter their legal assessments.
• DOJ Memo on Immunity: A classified memo from the Justice Department arguing that U.S. troops involved in boat strikes would not face legal jeopardy.
• Manifestly Unlawful Orders: The legal standard for refusing an order, where an order is clearly illegal on its face.
• Universal Jurisdiction: The principle that certain international crimes can be prosecuted by any state, regardless of where the crime occurred or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim.

U.S. Military Personnel Seeking Legal Counsel on Mission Legality

Military service members are increasingly seeking external legal advice concerning missions assigned by the Trump administration. This surge in inquiries stems from significant debate surrounding the legality of specific operations, notably U.S. strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats and deployments to American cities.

U.S. Strikes on Alleged Drug Trafficking Boats

• Frequency and Disclosure: Since September, the Pentagon has conducted approximately 20 strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific oceans, allegedly carrying drugs into the United States. These strikes have resulted in the deaths of dozens of people on board the vessels.
• Lack of Public Confirmation: The Trump administration has provided limited public disclosure regarding these strikes. There is no confirmation of drugs being found on board or the identities of those killed.
• President Trump's Justification: President Donald Trump has defended these lethal strikes, citing the high number of American deaths attributed to drug trafficking (he stated "300,000 people last year" died from drugs). He asserted that this provides legal authority for the operations, claiming knowledge of the boats and their contents, and stating that inaction would lead to further loss of American lives.
• DOJ Legal Cover: Reports indicate that the Justice Department (DOJ) has taken steps to ensure legal protection for military personnel involved. In the summer, DOJ lawyers reportedly drafted a classified memo arguing that U.S. troops participating in these boat strikes would be immune from legal jeopardy.
• Congressional Scrutiny: Despite the DOJ's efforts, questions about the legality of these strikes persist, even among Republican members of Congress. Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI) expressed dissatisfaction with the level of information and legal justification provided.

National Guard Deployments to American Cities

• Rising Concerns: The Orders Project is also receiving an increasing number of calls from National Guard personnel concerned about domestic deployments to American cities.
• Legal Uncertainty: These concerns are fueled by ongoing legal challenges and court decisions regarding presidential actions, described as a "tennis match" of back-and-forth rulings between district courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court.
• Guidance Provided: The Orders Project aims to help National Guard members understand their rights and obligations, encouraging them to ask the right questions of their leaders to ensure compliance with legal and moral standards, thereby preventing "moral injury."

Concerns of Complicity in Gaza

• Broader Legal Worries: The transcript also mentions calls expressing concerns about potential complicity in actions in Gaza due to U.S. weapons being supplied to Israel. This indicates a broader unease within the U.S. government about the potential legal ramifications of U.S. military support.

The Orders Project and Legal Advice for Military Personnel

The Orders Project, founded five years ago, serves as a crucial resource for military personnel seeking legal advice independent of the Defense Department.

• Nature of Calls: Lieutenant Colonel Frank Rosenblatt (Ret.), President of the National Institute of Military Justice, which runs The Orders Project, detailed the nature of the calls received.
• Focus on Staff Officers: A significant portion of the calls originate from staff officers who are tangentially involved in planning or approving missions, rather than those directly executing them.
• Pressure to Concur: These staff officers are reaching out due to concerns that their legal assessments are being disregarded. They report feeling pressure from superiors to change their opinions from "nonconcur" (disagreement) to "concur" (agreement) with decisions, such as carrying out the boat strikes.
• Officer vs. Enlisted Calls: The Orders Project predominantly receives calls from military officers, not lower-ranking enlisted members.
• Reason for Officer Focus: Colonel Rosenblatt suggests this is not due to a difference in the seriousness with which all members take their duties. Instead, lower enlisted members tend to trust that proper command and staff processes have been followed for any assigned task. Military staff officers, however, are more directly involved in the implementation and planning, giving them greater insight into potentially "boundary-pushing" or questionable mission aspects.

Response from the Department of Justice and Legal Analysis

The Department of Justice provided a statement in response to inquiries from "The News Hour."

• DOJ Statement: A DOJ spokesperson stated that the boat strikes were conducted "consistent with the laws of armed conflict" and were therefore "lawful orders." The statement further asserted that military personnel are legally obligated to follow lawful orders and are not subject to prosecution for doing so.
• Colonel Rosenblatt's Reaction to DOJ Statement: Colonel Rosenblatt acknowledged that, based on publicly available information, it is difficult to definitively label these orders as "manifestly unlawful." However, he emphasized that significant questions remain regarding the legal basis for these actions under both U.S. and international law.
• Analysis of DOJ Immunity Memo: Regarding the reported DOJ memo granting immunity, Colonel Rosenblatt cautioned against over-reliance on it. He raised several critical questions:
  • Reason for Immunity: He questioned why immunity is being offered and what specific conduct it is intended to cover.
  • Authority to Grant Immunity: He questioned whether the DOJ has the proper authority to grant such immunity, noting that DOJ immunity would not necessarily prevent prosecution by a state or by other countries under the principle of universal jurisdiction for alleged atrocity crimes.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The transcript highlights a growing concern among U.S. military personnel regarding the legality and ethical implications of missions assigned by the Trump administration. The Orders Project is a vital conduit for these concerns, particularly from staff officers who feel pressured to approve questionable operations. While the Department of Justice asserts the legality of these actions and offers immunity, legal experts like Colonel Rosenblatt urge caution, emphasizing that significant legal questions remain unanswered and that reliance on DOJ immunity may not provide absolute protection. The situation underscores the complex interplay between executive authority, military operations, and the legal and moral obligations of service members.