When military leaders are afraid to challenge an order, the consequences can be deadly. That is why the controversy surrounding U.S. military strikes against suspected drug traffickers at sea raises questions that extend far beyond counter-drug operations. What happens when military officers believe their careers depend more on demonstrating loyalty to political leaders than on providing candid legal and operational advice?
The danger isn’t simply that unlawful orders might go unchallenged. It’s that the military could gradually lose the professional independence, institutional integrity, and sound judgment that make it effective in the first place. Those consequences implicate the role of the military at home and abroad.
On September 15, 2026, Representative Thomas Massie introduced eight articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Article V references an issue we examined recently in Just Security, alleging that the Secretary replaced “maritime law enforcement with unauthorized lethal military targeting of suspected drug traffickers, resulting in at least 221 deaths.”
Whatever Congress ultimately makes of those charges, the boat strikes should be understood as part of a broader challenge facing the military: the erosion of institutional loyalty – and duty to law – in favor of loyalty to individual political leaders.
Military institutions depend on servicemember loyalty for the overall organization’s effectiveness. Institutional loyalty permits servicemembers to provide unvarnished professional advice, demonstrate moral courage, and show respect for the rule of law. Our nation demands and deserves military members who exemplify these behaviors. For generations, the military has sought to develop leaders whose advancement reflects professional expertise, sound judgment, and a commitment to the Constitution rather than personal political allegiance.
Civilian control of the military is fundamental to our constitutional system. Presidents and defense secretaries have every right to establish policy, select military leaders, and expect lawful orders to be carried out. But civilian control does not require unquestioning agreement. In the context of internal deliberations, there is a profound difference between demanding that officers faithfully execute lawful decisions and expecting them to suppress professional judgments that might contradict the preferences of political leaders.
Servicemembers’ oaths center the Constitution, not an individual, as the source of authority and legitimacy for our military. Commissioned officers swear to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to it. The structure of the oath reflects an important balance of constitutional fidelity and lawful civilian control. When loyalty is redefined as agreement with individuals in power, candid advice becomes disloyalty. Professionals learn to concur rather than dissent.
That danger becomes especially pronounced when senior military leaders and legal advisers are removed under circumstances that raise questions about whether professional disagreement is being punished. Even the perception that officers must align themselves politically with civilian leadership to preserve their careers can have a chilling effect throughout the ranks.
In February 2025, the president signed Executive Order 14215, which states that “[t]he President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch,” including the military. The order does not, on its face, prohibit military attorneys from raising contrary legal analysis internally, however, the following week, Secretary Hegseth dismissed the Army and Air Force Judge Advocates General as part of broader senior military leadership changes. He said the officers were not “well-suited” to provide recommendations when lawful orders are given, though no misconduct was publicly identified. Critics, including five former defense secretaries who served under Republican and Democratic presidents, argued that the removals raised concerns about politicization and civil-military relations.
Secretary Hegseth has publicly acknowledged the legitimacy of professional disagreement and the obligation to obey lawful orders, but his personnel decisions and public rhetoric raise questions about how much disagreement military leaders can safely express.
For example, during his September 30, 2026, State of the Force address, Hegseth declared that generals who had not embraced his vision, including those who “clung to the ‘Woke Department'” or appeared to question civilian control, “no longer work here.” Whether intended or not, the message to military leaders is troubling: Professional disagreement may carry consequences for their careers. In an institution that depends on candid advice, and a country that depends on that institution, even the perception of such consequences can be far-reaching and damaging.
Sound leadership requires informed challenges. Servicemembers have a duty to identify legal limits, operational risks, and uncomfortable facts. Leaders may reject that advice, but doing so is different from creating a culture in which offering it carries a personal cost. No amount of military hardware or technology can compensate for a culture that discourages judgment, candor, and integrity.
Military readiness suffers when servicemembers all the way down the chain of command are confronted with having to choose whether to obey illegal orders. The risk of moral injury has always been a part of military service. However, when an order directly contradicts the Constitution or the law, it increases the risk of moral injury in that the servicemember bears the burden of the decision, not the institution. Moral injury in aggregate decreases military readiness and can plague an individual for life. It can have systemic effects on an institution when many are so harmed.
The boat strikes illustrate why these institutional safeguards matter. For decades, the United States has relied on maritime interdiction, intelligence gathering, evidence preservation, prosecution, and cooperation with international partners to combat drug trafficking at sea. The decision to depart from that established law enforcement framework in favor of lethal military strikes raises profound legal and operational questions. We note that our observations on this matter are predicated on an assessment that such operations manifestly violate international law and by extension domestic law.
Were military lawyers able to challenge the legal justification? Did commanders have the opportunity to raise concerns about intelligence, targeting, or civilian casualties? And were those concerns seriously considered?
We do not know what advice was provided behind closed doors. But that uncertainty underscores the importance of protecting the military professionals responsible for asking difficult questions before lives are lost at the hands of the U.S. military, now totaling 238 people. It is safe to assume that many military personnel do not know what happened behind those closed doors either, but all the appearances create a pall over the institution. Given the manifest illegality of the operations, the most likely scenarios are either that leaders disregarded the advice of lawyers or that lawyers provided obviously flawed advice while other lawyers kept their heads low – or a combination of both.
It is easy to tell service members to do the right thing. It is considerably harder to do so when their careers, livelihoods, and professional reputations may be on the line. That is why those of us who have already served in senior military and civilian leadership positions have a particular responsibility to speak out. We no longer face the same professional pressures, and our silence only makes it harder for those still serving to exercise independent judgment.
Former military leaders, defense officials, and elected representatives must defend the right of servicemembers to provide candid professional advice, raise legal concerns, and challenge questionable decisions without fear of retaliation.
The strength of the American military has never rested on unquestioning loyalty to any president or defense secretary. It rests on the integrity of the men and women willing to tell those leaders what they need to hear, even when it is not what they want to hear.
The authors are retired U.S. Coast Guard senior officers with extensive experience in maritime law enforcement, operations, and policy. The views expressed are their own.
