There are moments when the frustration with PBS can reach its peak.

President Trump’s aggressive stance against narco-terrorists and his firm opposition to Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro doesn’t sit well with many. One might hope that a dedicated professional, whose job is to uncover the truth, would eventually question why certain “foreign policy” elites seem to back drug cartels and China-aligned dictators. Yet, I’m not holding my breath for that revelation.

Recently, the US Southern Command executed its 21st operation against vessels associated with drug smuggling since the initiative began on September 1. For more details, refer to Shots Fired! The US Military Sinks a Venezuelan Drug Runner (Updated) on RedState.

Interestingly, it seems this particular vessel wasn’t primarily transporting drugs but rather gasoline, which suggests a broader criminal enterprise beyond narcotics. Unlike cocaine or fentanyl, gasoline ignites in a distinct manner. My colleague, Ward Clark, delves deeper into the incident in US Forces Eliminate 3 More Narco-Terrorists in Pacific Drug Strike – RedState.

The media frequently labels these military actions as “illegal.” For example, POLITICO reports that some former GOP officials are concerned about the legality of US actions against alleged drug smugglers. These officials seem to have an opinion on everything, don’t they? Another report from The Independent evokes Nazi-era comparisons by questioning if a legal memo truly protects troops from future prosecution over these strikes. A think tank analyst in DC argues that Trump has yet to prove the legality of these actions, implying he needs formal approval from a so-called “lawful killing” judge. Another expert warns that future administrations could retroactively challenge the legality of these orders, but this seems absurd as it disregards the possibility of any lawful directive if future leaders disagree with current policies.

— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) November 16, 2025

As an aside, I don’t think this boat was smuggling drugs as its primary cargo, but gasoline. Coke and fentanyl don’t burn like that. This implies the cartels are engaged in more than drug running. My colleague, Ward Clark, covered this strike in more detail at US Forces Eliminate 3 More Narco-Terrorists in Pacific Drug Strike – RedState..

The drumbeat from the press is that these strikes are “illegal.” For instance: Former GOP officials fear US strikes on alleged drug smugglers aren’t legal – POLITICO. Former GOP officials, is there anything they don’t know? And there is this one that carries Nazi connotations (because of course it does): ‘Just following orders’? Experts doubt legal memo shields troops from prosecution over Trump’s boat strikes | The Independent. In this one, a guy from a DC think tank claims that Trump hasn’t established that the strikes are lawful (I guess he hasn’t gone to the “lawful killing” judge and gotten permission). Another guy says that even if he has, future administrations may decide he was wrong and prosecute everyone involved, which is horse dung because that means no one ever gets a lawful order if someone in the future doesn’t like the policy.

In this stew, we also had the no-notice resignation of US SOUTHCOM commander Admiral Alvin Hosey; see Did He Jump…Or Was He Pushed? US Top Commander for Latin America Abruptly Retires – RedState. He is widely rumored to have left because he opposed the policy of whacking narcotics smugglers. So I was intrigued by this PBS story, Military personnel seek legal advice on whether Trump-ordered missions are lawful | PBS News. Was Holsey on the leading edge of something? And if military personnel are seeking legal advice, then morale has hit rock bottom, and the wheels are about to come off the Venezuela/cartel operation in the form of a mass resignation that can’t be ignored.

The subject of the interview was Frank Rosenblatt, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, which runs The Orders Project, “a group of professionals, experienced in military justice, who are committed to connecting service members with experienced legal counsel to make informed decisions about their duties under the law as it relates to orders.” 

The interview starts this way: 

Military service personnel have been seeking outside legal advice about some of the missions the Trump administration has assigned them.

The U.S. strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats and deployments to American cities have sparked a firestorm of debate over their legality, and some service members are turning to nonprofit organizations for help.

Rosenblatt responds, “We are primarily getting calls, a lot of people who are tangentially involved. They aren’t the people who are actually on the operations or are approving them.” He goes on to say that people who are giving advice and opinions against the operation are feeling informal pressure to get on board.

The way I read that is that the military lawyers who ruled the roost in Iraq and Afghanistan, creating a maze of legal hoops that commanders had to jump through before engaging the enemy, are finding themselves sidelined. If the operators aren’t concerned, then no one asking questions about the orders matters.

Stepping back, a lawyer giving you advice on carrying out an order isn’t all that useful. The Orders Project produces an excellent downloadable publication called  A SOURCEBOOK FOR ADVISING MILITARY PERSONNEL. Let me use their publication to demonstrate why relying on legal advice to disobey an order is a high-risk, low-payoff proposition.

First and foremost, any order you receive from a superior officer, so long as it is military related, is presumed to be lawful. You don’t get to demand to see a legal opinion; you really don’t even get to do the theatrical, “give it to me in writing.” This is from the “Sourcebook,” but it is taken directly from Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer.

(a) Lawfulness of the order. 

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. 

If you guess wrong, it can be painful. You could be looking at life in prison in a worst-case scenario.

Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of that person’s superior commissioned officer shall be punished— 

1) if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct; and 

(2) if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct. 

This is the standard you are up against.

Rule 916. Defenses 

(d) Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful. 

Discussion 

The “person of ordinary sense and understanding” is a high bar to clear. If the President or the Secretary of War has directed the operation, a “person of ordinary sense and understanding” would probably think that the order to whack drug smugglers was legal. And read that last paragraph carefully. Even if the big guy is wrong, but the order was colorably legal, you don’t have to worry about someone hunting you down in the future.

This, by the way, was immortalized at the Infantry School as the “Calley Defense.” When Lieutenant William Calley was court-martialed for the My Lai Massacre, his defense was that when he was allegedly told by his superior to kill the villagers, his intelligence was so below ordinary that he couldn’t be held responsible for thinking the order was legal. It didn’t work.

The bottom line, consulting a lawyer is not, in the case of either blowing up drug cartel boats or invading Venezuela is not going to give you an out. If you object, have the guts to go into your boss’s office, throw your rank on his desk, and tell him you’re out. 

At best, this story was the worst sort of clickbait (though it worked as I did click it, and I was incensed enough to write about it) or, more likely, part of an information operation designed to create the narrative that military officers working in the U.S. SOUTHCOM area of operations are lawyering up because they believe the operation is illegal.

Either way, PBS doesn’t deserve our tax money, and thanks to President Trump, they are no longer getting it.

RedState is your leading source for news and views on administration, politics, culture, and conservatism. If you appreciate our reporting and commentary, please consider becoming a member and supporting our efforts. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.