The 2006 graduating class at West Point take an Oath , credit: Shealah Craighead | The White House

WHEN SIX MEMBERS OF CONGRESS released a short video on Tuesday emphatically reminding military personnel1 that they must not obey illegal orders, the message ricocheted through the political world and the media like a rifle shot. Reactions split along predictable lines. Some saw the video as a necessary civic reminder in a volatile moment. Others attacked it as inappropriate political rhetoric directed at the armed forces. Still others lied about what was said, or mocked the message as condescending. As the controversy escalated, the lawmakers who appeared in the video began receiving death threats, while the president himself suggested—astonishingly—that their message constituted “sedition” and that they should be imprisoned or executed.

I want to address a fundamental point revealed by the video and the debate surrounding it: Most Americans do not understand what is in the oaths sworn by our service members. Confusion about that, combined with an understandable desire to keep the military a nonpartisan institution, fuels both the alarm that motivated the video’s creation and the backlash against the video. A clearer understanding on this subject will help reveal the aspects of our constitutional structure that protect the nation from unlawful uses of the military.

Here’s the truth, learned on the first day of service by every enlisted soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian, and coast guardsman, and learned but sometimes not recognized by the young officers who first take the oath: There is not one military oath. There are two. And the differences between them explain exactly who is responsible for refusing illegal orders, why the system was designed that way, and what it means for this moment.

One reason the debate keeps going sideways is that the public keeps talking about “the military” as if it were a single, undifferentiated mass of people with identical obligations. It isn’t. The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two different oaths—one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers. That structure is not bureaucratic trivia; it is grounded on the bedrock American civil–military relations. Ignoring it leads to the misleading assumption that everyone in uniform bears equal responsibility when confronted with an unlawful command.

They don’t. And that distinction matters.

Enlisted members swear to support and defend the Constitution, and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member’s obligation is to obey “lawful” orders, and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level up.

Which brings us to the officer oath—shorter in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to “support and defend” the Constitution; to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it; and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. They also affirm that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What they do not swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to obey the president and the officers above them.

That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders intended. They are expected—by law, by professional ethic, and by centuries of tradition—to exercise independent judgment when presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational. It is their job.

When the members of Congress in their video urge what seems to be the entire military not to follow illegal orders, they may unintentionally blur the very lines that keep the system functioning. Enlisted personnel obey lawful orders; officers ensure the orders that reach them are lawful. The real constitutional failsafe is not a general broadcast to every rank. It is the officer corps, obligated by oath to the Constitution alone.

This matters in a moment when Americans are hearing loud claims about using the military to solve political disputes, intervene in elections, or take actions beyond statutory authority. People are right to worry. But they should also understand the guardrails already in place. The military has been here before—they have already, at times in our history, faced unlawful pressure, political manipulation, or attempts to turn the armed forces into a tool of personal power.

Also worth remembering: No one in the American military swears allegiance to any individual. The oaths are not pledges of loyalty to a party, a personality, or a political movement. Loyalty is pledged to the Constitution—and officers further take that obligation “without mental reservation,” knowing full well it may someday require them to stand with courage between unlawful authority and the people they serve.

So while pundits and politicians continue fighting over the optics of the lawmakers’ video, the core reality remains: The safeguards are already built into the structure. The oaths already distribute responsibility. The law already forbids what some fear. And the officer corps already knows that they bear the constitutional duty to ensure that unlawful orders never reach the young men and women who follow them, and who, in effect, they also serve.

This is not a moment for panic. It is a moment for clarity.

If Americans understood the difference between the two oaths—one grounded in obedience, the other grounded in constitutional discernment—they would see that the republic’s defenses against unlawful orders are not theoretical. They exist. They function. They don’t depend on the whims of political actors on either side of the aisle, but on the integrity of those who swear to uphold them.