Concerns are mounting among military personnel about the possibility of being ordered to execute unlawful commands, following allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed troops to “eliminate everyone” during a boat strike in September.

This anxiety is evident through a surge in inquiries to the Orders Project, an organization offering complimentary legal guidance to military members. The calls are mainly from staff officers tasked with planning strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels and those responsible for identifying individuals on these boats as threats, thus justifying such operations.

Despite a purported confidential memo from the Justice Department this summer suggesting that U.S. troops involved in these strikes would not face legal repercussions, military personnel seem particularly worried about potential legal risks. Frank Rosenblatt, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, which oversees the Orders Project, noted this heightened concern.

Rosenblatt explained, “This issue is new. Throughout the entire global war on terror across Iraq and Afghanistan, this kind of concern didn’t arise. No one ever assured troops that they were immune to prosecution for potential crimes.” He mentioned that since the Orders Project’s inception in 2020, the volume of such calls was minimal until a recent surge three months ago.

“Service members typically believed that as long as they performed their duties ethically, without engaging in actions like targeting civilians, they wouldn’t face prosecution. The introduction of immunity into the conversation now raises alarm and prompts them to question, ‘What exactly might I be asked to do?'” Rosenblatt added.

Service members’ uncertainty over whether they will be asked to carry out an illegal order or pressured to go against their training is likely to be exacerbated after The Washington Post and CNN late last week reported that Hegseth authorized a highly unusual strike to kill all survivors aboard a boat allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean Sea this fall. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Monday that on Sept. 2, Hegseth authorized Adm. Frank Bradley to carry out a follow-up strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean; the strike reportedly killed two people who were hanging onto the burning vessel, having survived an initial strike.

“President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war,” Leavitt said. “Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.” 

The situation also comes as Trump has sparred with six congressional Democrats over a video from last month reminding service members that they can defy illegal military orders. Trump has called for the lawmakers — who all have military or national security backgrounds — to face arrest and trial for what he called “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” 

But lawmakers from both parties, as well as former officials, have raised alarms that Hegseth may have committed a war crime. Included among them is former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who said Monday he doesn’t “think there’s any question” the second U.S. strike on the alleged drug boat was a war crime.

Service members are worried about the same possibility, according to Rosenblatt, who said call activity to the Orders Project was “generally very low until three months ago,” when the Trump administration began targeting alleged drug-carrying boats. The administration has disclosed 21 strikes that have killed at least 83 people. 

He described several calls to the organization, including one from a person who could potentially be involved in the strikes. 

“We had one issue of a person who is going to an upcoming assignment, and wanted to know what their options were, because they thought they may be involved in some of these strikes where the legal basis right now is at best contested,” Rosenblatt said. “This person had questions, saying, ‘I don’t want to be doing something that is illegal, that I could get in trouble for later.’” 

Rosenblatt also referenced a staff officer — someone meant to apply their niche expertise to a drafted plan — who was asked to apply their knowledge to a document that designated the individuals being targeted as the enemy, thus allowing the U.S. to attack under the rules of war.

“This person applied their expertise and said, ‘No, this doesn’t meet the standards of my expertise.’ And this person called us because they said, ‘I felt a lot of pressure after I made that decision,’” Rosenblatt said.

While the individual’s action did not constitute a veto on the strikes, they said they were pressured by very senior political appointees to show that there was a unanimous agreement among military officers that the strikes are legally compliant. 

“And so what do I do? I’m feeling pressure. I feel like I’m ostracized. I’m being treated like I’m not a team player,” the individual asked, as paraphrased by Rosenblatt. “I want to know the next time this comes, what I should do? I worry if I keep sticking my guns on this, it’s going to be a career killer for me.”

Rosenblatt said such concerns show a deeper issue service members face beyond being asked to carry out a potentially illegal order: the possibility of being pressured to bend their standards in service of something they don’t feel is right. 

“I think, from their perspective, it’s questionable what they may be asked to do,” he said. “I think a lot of people are watching and concerned.”