On December 8, 2025, a wave of controversy swept across Washington as newly unearthed comments from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, dating back to 2016, collided headlong with his current stance on the military’s obligation to refuse unlawful orders. The revelations, first reported by CNN and further detailed by the Democratic National Committee and The New York Times, have reignited a fierce debate over the responsibilities of U.S. armed forces under presidential command—and the shifting political winds that shape those responsibilities.
Back in 2016, as Donald Trump campaigned for the White House with promises that American troops would follow his every directive, even those considered by some to be illegal, Pete Hegseth—then a Fox News contributor and Army National Guard veteran—stood firmly on the side of military law and constitutional limits. "You’re not just gonna follow that order if it’s unlawful," Hegseth declared during a March 2016 appearance on “Fox & Friends,” according to CNN. He doubled down on Fox Business, stating, "The military’s not gonna follow illegal orders." These comments, echoed again in April 2016 and unearthed by CNN’s KFile, left little room for ambiguity: the U.S. military, Hegseth insisted, would not—and should not—carry out unlawful commands, even from the commander-in-chief.
The issue wasn’t theoretical. Trump’s campaign rhetoric at the time included calls for the military to engage in acts widely considered breaches of the laws of war, such as targeting terrorists’ families and reinstituting prohibited forms of torture. Hegseth, along with many military leaders, publicly rejected these proposals, warning of the grave consequences for troops who might obey such orders. “Here’s the problem with Trump,” Hegseth said on Megyn Kelly’s show. “He says, ‘Go ahead and kill the family. Go ahead and torture. Go ahead and go further than waterboarding.’” He added, “What happens when people follow those orders, or don’t follow them? It’s not clear that Donald Trump will have their back.”
Yet, as Trump secured the presidency and eventually appointed Hegseth as Defense Secretary, the tone and priorities in Washington began to shift. In recent weeks, Hegseth has been at the center of a new storm—this time, not as a critic of potential unlawful orders, but as a fierce defender of the administration’s military actions and a vocal antagonist of those raising the same concerns he once did. When six Democratic lawmakers released a video urging military personnel to refuse unlawful orders, Hegseth branded them the “Seditious Six,” accusing them of spreading “despicable, reckless, and false” information. He ordered a Pentagon investigation into one of the lawmakers, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a retired Navy captain. President Trump went even further, labeling the lawmakers’ actions “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” according to The New York Times.
Hegseth’s pivot has not gone unnoticed. Critics, including Democratic National Committee Communications Director Rosemary Boeglin, have accused him of hypocrisy and endangering national security. “Pete Hegseth used to warn that U.S. armed service members had a duty to refuse illegal orders, but now he’s bending over backwards to enable Donald Trump’s reckless impulses, even if they’re unlawful,” Boeglin said in a statement. “Hegseth’s hypocrisy isn’t just disgraceful — it’s dangerous. He’s unqualified for the job, and it shows: His incompetence has put our troops in harm’s way and endangered our nation’s security. Americans deserve better for their Secretary of Defense.”
At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental question: What is the duty of military personnel when faced with an order they believe to be unlawful? Hegseth’s earlier statements were unequivocal. As CNN reported, he insisted that “no one should follow orders that violate the law or our Constitution,” and that the military’s ethos required refusing such orders. He argued that carrying out illegal commands could expose service members to criminal liability and undermine trust in the chain of command.
This view is not unique to Hegseth. As The New York Times noted, even Pam Bondi, the attorney general, stated in a 2024 Supreme Court friend-of-the-court brief that “military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders.” Bondi wrote, “The military would not carry out a patently unlawful order from the president to kill nonmilitary targets. Indeed, service members are required not to do so.” Her brief was filed in support of Trump’s request for immunity from prosecution related to charges of subverting the 2020 election, and was intended to counter a damaging statement by one of Trump’s private lawyers, who had claimed that a president could not be prosecuted even for ordering the assassination of a political rival—because, Bondi argued, the military simply wouldn’t comply with such an order.
But the debate has grown more heated as the Trump administration faces allegations that U.S. forces, under Hegseth’s direction, may have carried out strikes against alleged drug boats that legal experts say could violate the laws of war. In response to Democratic lawmakers raising concerns over these actions, Hegseth has accused them of conducting a “politically motivated influence operation,” undermining trust in the military’s legal procedures and the chain of command, as reported by CNN.
For many observers, the episode highlights the enduring tension between civilian control of the military and the ethical obligations of those who serve. During the 2016 Republican presidential debate, Trump was asked what he would do if the military refused to carry out one of his orders. His answer was defiant: “They won’t refuse. They won’t refuse me. Trust me.” Hegseth, at the time, warned that such rhetoric created “even more ambiguity” and could erode the clear legal boundaries that safeguard democracy and human rights.
Now, with Hegseth at the helm of the Pentagon and the administration pressing forward with controversial military actions, those boundaries are once again being tested. The clash between past principles and present politics leaves service members, lawmakers, and the public grappling with where the line should be drawn—and who has the authority, or the duty, to draw it.
As the debate rages on, the stakes could hardly be higher. The decisions made today will echo through the ranks of the military and the halls of government for years to come, shaping not only the conduct of war but the very fabric of American democracy.
