In the wake of World War II, a lot of Nazis were left answering difficult questions. Y’know, about all those crimes against humanity they committed. At the Nuremberg trials, there was one common defense: “I was just following orders!”. This was famously rejected by the court, which underlined the principle that individuals are accountable for their actions, even when acting under orders, especially if they know those orders are manifestly illegal or immoral. Since then, anyone attempting this defense has been generally dismissed, particularly in cases involving severe offenses like murder or human rights abuses. If you’re serving in the military and you’re given an order you think is illegal, you must exercise your own moral judgment and refuse to carry it out. All of which leads us to the present day, with the Trump administration ordering military personnel to do things that appear either unconstitutional or illegal under international law. This is making some people very nervous as they wonder whether they’ll one day be forced to answer for what they’ve done. Military service personnel have been seeking outside legal advice about some of the missions the Trump administration has assigned them. https://t.co/vFrl9tJg9a— PBS News (@NewsHour) November 14, 2025 This dilemma was outlined in a new PBS interview with retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank Rosenblatt, president of the National Institute of Military Justice. He underlined that military officers have been seeking “outside legal advice” relating to Trump’s orders to strike boats in the Caribbean suspected (but never proven) to be transporting drugs: “… The military staff officers, on the other hand, they are actually involved in the implementation and planning of these missions. And so, when they are, they are able to, I think, maybe get some insight into that sometimes there may be asked to do things that they don’t think are correct or that are at least maybe boundary-pushing and are different than how they have done things in the past.” Why are they offering immunity from prosecution? Rosenblatt also clarified that the Department of Justice’s promise that soldiers have blanket immunity to prosecution for their actions (itself very telling) doesn’t provide full protection: “Why is this being offered? I mean, we don’t normally immunize people. And so the question is, what is it that you’re asking me to do? What sort of conduct will confer this immunity?” And that: “For example, if a service member relies on DOJ immunity, that doesn’t mean that a state may not prosecute them for any crimes they commit, or if they travel to another country. If there are allegations that they have committed atrocity crimes, then other countries are — could invoke their own universal jurisdiction and put them before the national courts of another country.” It’s worth underlining that the military oath is explicitly to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”, so technically there should be some protection against disobeying an order if you are certain it’s unconstitutional. On the other hand, proving that in court would be difficult, if not impossible. Either way, military personnel may be in for some tough choices in the coming months. Do they serve Donald Trump or the American people? It’s time to find out.