The Military Faces a Dilemma Over Potentially Unethical Domestic Orders

A critical question looms: would a military officer refuse to follow a lawful order that is nevertheless unethical, violating their professional standards? This scenario may soon be tested.

Recently, Marines were deployed to the Los Angeles area to reinforce National Guard units already present. Their current mission, as outlined by presidential directive, is to safeguard federal properties and functions, not to conduct general domestic law enforcement. However, this scope could rapidly expand.

Legally, a presidential order directing military involvement in domestic policing is almost certainly valid. The Constitution grants the president authority to protect federal interests, and the Insurrection Act of 1807 provides a low threshold for using military forces in domestic law enforcement. Moreover, military officers are ethically bound to obey lawful orders, suggesting they should comply with such directives.

Complications arise if the president orders military action for domestic policing that is unnecessary—such as when local law enforcement could manage the situation—or if the action is politically motivated or reckless. While these orders might remain legally sound, they would breach the officers' professional ethical code, which mandates rejection of unethical commands.

This places military officers in a paradox: their duty simultaneously demands obedience to lawful orders and resistance to unethical ones.

The military’s professional ethics emphasize nonpartisanship to prevent politicization and preserve the institution’s commitment to national interests. Additionally, these ethics encourage limiting military roles to their core expertise—combat operations. The military is trained to confront and defeat enemies in battle, where lethal force is often an accepted outcome. This contrasts sharply with domestic policing, where minimizing deadly force is a primary objective.