Rep. Jason Crow Urges Military to Defy Illegal Orders Amid Trump Controversy

U.S. Representative Jason Crow (D-CO), a decorated combat veteran, has publicly urged members of the U.S. military to refuse illegal orders. This declaration comes against a backdrop of heated exchanges with former President Donald Trump, who reacted strongly to Crow’s statements. In a video released last week, Crow, along with five other veteran lawmakers, emphasized that no service member is obliged to follow orders that violate the law or the Constitution.

Trump responded to their call for military integrity with incendiary remarks, labelling the group as traitors and suggesting extreme consequences. In a social media post, he wrote, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” though he later clarified that he did not intend to call for violence. The response from Crow and his colleagues has included reports of death threats, highlighting the dangerous climate surrounding this issue.

Discussing the legal implications, Joseph Jordan, a former U.S. Army officer and legal expert, pointed to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He explained that while service members must obey orders, they are not required to follow those deemed “patently illegal,” particularly if they direct the commission of a crime. The code does enforce consequences for disobedience, as military judges determine the legality of orders.

In a relevant commentary published in the New York Times, attorney and veteran David French examined the complexities surrounding military orders. He identified clear legal boundaries, such as the unequivocal prohibition against shooting prisoners. In contrast, orders to engage potential threats, like bombing suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean, complicate the situation further. French noted that Trump’s directives could place military leaders in a position of complicity regarding unlawful actions.

Historical Parallels Highlight Ethical Dilemmas

The historical context of military defiance resonates deeply, particularly when considering the Sand Creek Massacre of November 29, 1864. On this day, Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer made the courageous decision to prevent their troops from participating in the slaughter of approximately 200 Cheyenne and Arapahoe natives, predominantly women and children.

At that time, Colorado was a contested territory, having transitioned to U.S. status in 1861. Tensions escalated with the native tribes, who had been living in the area long before colonization. Following a peace delegation the previous September, which included Colorado’s Governor John Evans, the tribes believed they were assured safety. However, Colonel John Chivington, seeking to bolster his reputation, led a surprise attack on the encampment, resulting in a bloody massacre.

Both Soule and Cramer, horrified by the events, later penned heartfelt letters to their commanding officer, Major Edward Wynkoop, expressing their disapproval. Although the Army held hearings, the full vindication of their actions was delayed by Soule’s assassination a few months later.

Contemporary and Historical Accountability

The legacy of these events continues to shape discussions about military orders and ethical responsibilities. In recent evaluations, reports by both Northwestern University and the University of Denver have scrutinized Evans’ role in the massacre, attributing significant responsibility to him for fostering an environment conducive to violence. The DU report stated that Evans “created the conditions in which the massacre was highly likely.”

Soule’s grave, marked by a simple tombstone, stands in stark contrast to the imposing memorial of Evans, who, despite his silence during a critical moment in history, is buried with grandeur. On Memorial Day, flowers and tributes were found at Soule’s grave, while Evans’ site remained neglected—symbolic of the differing legacies of these two figures.

As Crow and other lawmakers navigate the complexities of military orders today, their actions resonate with the moral dilemmas faced by leaders like Soule in the past. The ongoing dialogue underscores the importance of accountability and the courage required to stand against unlawful directives, a principle that remains vital within the armed forces.