The recent and unprecedented decision by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to fire top military officers—including the heads of the Judge Advocates General Corps (TJAGs)—shocked many. While this mass dismissal signaled a worrying shift in how the administration views military leadership, it also highlighted a deeper, often overlooked issue: institutional rules prevent the thousands of lower-ranking military lawyers (JAGs) from being the final defense against illegal orders.
Civil-military relations scholar Eliot Cohen explained why the firings of the top lawyers are so serious: “The TJAGs embody the deep respect that the United States military has had for the rule of law. Although they merely advise and do not command, their role is a crucial one.”
The “Friday Night Blitz” and Its Message
The February dismissals of six senior military officials was quickly dubbed the “Friday Night Blitz.” This included dismissing simultaneously the TJAGs of the Army and Air Force: Lieutenant General Joseph Berger and Lieutenant General Charles Plummer respectively. Experts noted that the move was unrelated to the lawyers’ skill. Instead, the administration seemed determined to remove any legal checks on its plans, such as using the military more aggressively at the southern border.
When defending the decision, Secretary Hegseth said, “We want lawyers who give sound constitutional advice and don’t exist to attempt to be roadblocks to anything.”
Critics saw this differently. As Senator Jack Reed (the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee) remarked, “If you’re going to break the law, the first thing you do is you get rid of the lawyers.” The fear is that these lawyers will be replaced by ones who are more agreeable and less likely to challenge potentially unlawful directives.
The Structural Problem for Junior JAGs
As a result, many people are turning towards the possibility of junior JAGs playing a role in keeping a check of illegal actions from the military. However, the core issue for the thousands of lower-ranking Judge Advocates General (JAGs) is not a lack of courage, but a structural problem in how the military legal system is designed.
These lawyers are assigned to bases and operational units worldwide to support the Department of Defense as an organization, not to serve as personal attorneys for individual commanders. For example, the senior lawyer who advises a division commander, known as the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), is certainly permitted to offer advice on an order before the commander issues it, ensuring it’s legal from the start. This is the only truly safe point of influence for the unit’s lawyer. However, if that commander receives an order from a higher authority and believes it might be unlawful, their SJA is suddenly prevented from advising them on whether to follow it.
This restriction exists because disobeying an order is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If the SJA gave the commander advice during the period they were considering defiance, that advice could be seen as the lawyer aiding and abetting the violation of a military law. As a result, the only point in the process where a senior JAG can permissibly argue against an unlawful order is with the originator of the order itself—the issuer—not with the downstream recipients of the order. Once the order is issued, the legal system’s ability to check it moves up the chain of command, leaving the local commander isolated.
Furthermore, one might assume a commander, worried about the legality of a received order, could simply consult a defense attorney for private, confidential advice. Yet, that option is also foreclosed by regulation. Military defense lawyers, who are independent and provide privileged representation, are specifically barred from advising any service member until formal adverse action (such as charges or an official investigation) has already begun. In effect, when a commander is facing the most difficult choice—whether or not to break the law by disobeying what might be an illegal order—there is no military lawyer they can legally turn to for private, protected counsel.
The Need for Conscientious Resistance
The danger is clear: without lawyers able to offer advice on the ground, commanders could be ordered to carry out complex, ill-suited missions like blending immigration enforcement and counter-terror operations on American soil without proper legal counsel. Some had hoped that military lawyers would naturally serve as a brake on aggressive or illegal impulses. As one observer, M.L. Cavanaugh wrote, “Our generals and JAGs … must lead the institution through the ethical minefields ahead.”
While the institutional deck is stacked against them, JAGs must stand firm. They still take an oath to the Constitution and abide by rules of professional conduct as licensed attorneys. Therefore, even facing potential marginalization, judge advocate officers at all levels must continue to professionally and conscientiously resist any attempt to erode the Department of Defense’s commitment to the rule of law.
Read the original article here.
