Dear Soldiers: Avoid Getting Incarcerated for Pete Hegseth

During my time as a U.S. Army infantryman, I was repeatedly taught a variety of critical principles, from maintaining vigilance to never abandoning a wounded comrade. One lesson stood out: firing on an incapacitated enemyoften called a "double tap"could land a soldier in prison.

When I deployed to Iraq as a 20-year-old with only a high school diploma, I wasnt a legal expert. Still, I understood that any use of force had to be justified, and I was instructed repeatedly on the duty to disobey unlawful orders. The current administration seems to have little regard for these standards. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly criticized the usual rules of engagement, viewing them as restrictive.

During his first term, President Trump pardoned several convicted or accused war criminals following Hegseths suggestions. In his second term, actions authorized by Trump escalated to effectively treating war crimes as policy. Since September 2, U.S. forces have attacked multiple small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, resulting in at least 83 deaths. The people targeted were not officially declared enemies in a war, and Congress never authorized these operations. Trump explicitly stated that authorization for these strikes was unnecessary, framing the killings as direct action against drug traffickers.

Reports indicate that in the initial strike, two survivors remained. U.S. military obligations under both domestic and international law require securing and treating wounded combatants as prisoners of war. Instead, a second strike was reportedly ordered to eliminate them, allegedly under Hegseths directive to kill them all. When six Democratic lawmakers reminded troops of their duty to refuse unlawful orders, Trump labeled the action as seditious, threatening extreme punishment.

While the Supreme Court granted Trump immunity for official acts, this protection does not extend to anyone else in the chain of command. Soldiers, officers, and commanders remain legally accountable for unlawful killings, now or in the future.

American service members cannot rely on the just following orders defense. Post-World War II law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly establish that disobeying unlawful orders is mandatory. Historical cases, including the My Lai massacre and abuses at Abu Ghraib, demonstrate that service members have beenand continue to beprosecuted for illegal actions, regardless of orders received.

Service members cannot control political agendas or the advice given to presidents, but they are the ones facing potential courts-martial and lifelong consequences. These actions involve real lives and real moral responsibility. Rules of engagement exist to prevent unjustified killings and preserve both operational integrity and human ethics.

One of my best decisions in Iraq was refraining from firing at a suspected threat, which turned out to be an innocent civilian. That choice spared both lives and prevented personal guilt. The lesson is clear: if you are ordered to commit a war crime or extrajudicial killing, it is not just morally wrongit is criminal. You could face prosecution now or in the future.

To all service members, commanders, and political leaders: Do not risk your freedom and conscience by following illegal orders. Protect yourselves, uphold the law, and refuse to participate in acts of unlawful violence.

Author: Zoe Harrison