Internet divided as ex-military officials warn Trump’s immunity claim would put troops in legal jeopardy

WASHINGTON, DC: If the Supreme Court grants former president Donald Trump's motion to dismiss his DC case based on presidential immunity, troops may be forced to make the awkward choice of disobeying orders from the commander-in-chief or breaking US law, according to a group of 19 former senior military officials in an amicus brief submitted on Monday, April 8, the New York Post reported.

Former service branch secretaries and retired four-star officers contended in court documents that the move would put troops "in the impossible position of having to choose between following their Commander-in-Chief and obeying the laws enacted by Congress", contrary to Trump's attorneys' claim that presidential immunity shields US presidents from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.

Ex-officials warn Trump’s presidential immunity claim would place troops in legal jeopardy

According to the group, which includes leaders who have "served under each president from John F Kennedy to Donald J Trump", this is because, although the president would be shielded from prosecution, those who carry out illegal actions on the president's orders would be charged criminally. This would essentially transfer the legal consequences onto the troops.

The former senior military officials wrote, "Petitioner’s theory that the president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, if accepted, has the potential to severely undermine the commander-in-chief’s legal and moral authority to lead the military forces, as it would signal that they – but not he – must obey the rule of law."

Notably, even though the Military Code of Justice mandates that soldiers refuse illegal orders, the group contended that supporting Trump would unjustly put military personnel in the awkward position of having to chastise the head of the free world or risk going to jail.

The group wrote, "Under this theory, the president could, with impunity, direct his national security appointees to, in turn, direct members of the military to execute plainly unlawful orders, placing those in the chain of command in an untenable position and irreparably harming the trust fundamental to civil-military relations."

They further added, "Our system requires trust in the Commander-in-Chief as a source of legal and moral authority to lead the men and women of the armed forces, as at his orders they place their lives in peril to serve their country."

On the other hand, Trump asserted that "a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America, without Presidential Immunity."

He wrote in a Truth Social post on February 28, "Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office."

Internet divided over ex-officials' statement about presidential immunity

People on the internet were divided amid the statement by a group of 19 former senior military officials. A user posted on X, "Troops have obeyed unlawful orders for centuries," while another added, "What American President has been prosecuted for war crimes?" A person just wrote, "Dumb."

One individual said, "They’re breaking the law right now. Daily," while another commented, "Who's in charge? Who is elected by the people, the president of military?"

One person wrote, "Soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution. There is a duty to disobey unlawful orders. This bozo should read UCMJ Article 92 & IHL 154 before blabbing. Obeying unlawful orders will subject the soldier to a court martial. The soldier will get a DD."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.