Telling the military to disobey illegal orders is not treason. Telling Ukraine to obey Russian-dictated orders is…

In the heated landscape of American politics, statements about loyalty, obedience, and national security often ignite fierce debates. A recent headline from satirist Andy Borowitz captures this tension succinctly:

“Telling the military to disobey illegal orders is not treason. Telling Ukraine to obey Russian-dictated orders is.” This phrase emerged amid controversy surrounding a video released by Democratic lawmakers urging U.S. military personnel to refuse unlawful commands, which President-elect Donald Trump labeled as traitorous.2c7709 But is there merit to flipping the script and applying the concept of treason to foreign policy stances on the Russia-Ukraine war? Let’s unpack this.
The Military’s Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders
At the core of the debate is a fundamental principle of U.S. military law: service members are not only permitted but required to disobey orders that violate the Constitution, federal law, or international treaties. This is enshrined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and reinforced by training and oaths of enlistment. For instance, Article 92 of the UCMJ punishes failure to obey lawful orders, but it explicitly does not apply to unlawful ones. Historical precedents, such as the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, underscore that blind obedience can lead to atrocities, and refusing illegal directives is a safeguard against them.
In November 2025, six Democratic lawmakers released a video addressing military members, emphasizing their obligation to uphold the Constitution and reject any “illegal orders.” The message was a response to concerns about potential overreach in a second Trump administration, including fears of using the military for domestic political purposes, such as mass deportations or suppressing protests. Trump responded vehemently, calling the Democrats “traitors” and suggesting their actions constituted sedition, even punishable by death. Legal experts, however, argue that reminding troops of their legal duties is far from treasonous—it’s a reinforcement of democratic norms.
Treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, is narrowly limited to levying war against the United States or providing aid and comfort to its enemies. Encouraging adherence to the law doesn’t meet this threshold. As one Reddit discussion on the topic noted, implying that lawful orders might be illegal could border on sedition in extreme interpretations, but simply stating the duty to refuse unlawful ones is standard military doctrine.
The Ukraine-Russia Parallel: A Question of Sovereignty and Allegiance

The second part of the headline shifts focus to international affairs, specifically the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has resisted aggression with significant Western support, including from the U.S. However, some American political figures have advocated for Ukraine to negotiate terms that align closely with Russian demands, such as ceding territory in Crimea, Donbas, or other regions. Critics argue this amounts to pressuring Ukraine to “obey Russian-dictated orders,” potentially undermining U.S. interests and alliances.
For example, during his 2024 campaign and post-election statements, Trump has suggested that Ukraine should seek a quick peace deal, even if it involves concessions to Russia. While not explicitly calling for obedience to Moscow, such positions have been interpreted by opponents as weakening Ukraine’s sovereignty and indirectly aiding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s objectives.527eb9 Borowitz’s headline draws a stark contrast: if reminding U.S. troops of their constitutional duties is labeled treason, then advising a U.S. ally to submit to an adversary’s terms might more closely resemble “aid and comfort” to enemies.
This isn’t without precedent. During World War II, isolationists who opposed U.S. involvement were accused of sympathizing with Axis powers. Today, with Russia designated as a U.S. adversary—evidenced by sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, and NATO expansions—pushing for outcomes favorable to Moscow could raise questions about national loyalty. However, applying the legal definition of treason here is tricky. Treason requires overt acts during wartime, and the U.S. is not formally at war with Russia. Political speech, even if controversial, is protected under the First Amendment unless it crosses into direct incitement or espionage.
Broader Implications for Democracy and Foreign Policy
This headline highlights a deeper divide in American discourse: the weaponization of terms like “treason” and “traitor” to silence dissent. On one hand, concerns about executive overreach are valid, especially given historical abuses of power. On the other, foreign policy debates on Ukraine touch on isolationism versus internationalism, with real stakes for global stability. Urging Ukraine to concede to Russia might not be treasonous in a legal sense, but it could be seen as strategically shortsighted, emboldening aggressors and eroding U.S. credibility.
In a truth-seeking lens, neither side’s actions in these examples clearly constitute treason. The Democrats’ video aligns with military ethics, while calls for Ukraine to negotiate reflect legitimate policy differences. Yet, the rhetoric escalates tensions, as seen in Trump’s threats to “lock up” critics.6ea24d For a healthy democracy, distinguishing between lawful dissent and true threats to security is essential.
As the U.S. navigates a new administration, these debates will likely intensify. The key takeaway? Loyalty to the Constitution trumps blind allegiance to any leader, whether in domestic military matters or international alliances. In the end, hyperbolic accusations of treason do little to resolve the underlying issues—they only deepen divisions.