• Brig. Gen. Eric Widmar told Chairman Dan Caine that commanders should request retirement rather than resign in protest
• Guidance emerged after Democratic lawmakers publicly urged troops to disobey illegal orders
• More than a dozen senior officers have been fired or retired early since Trump took office

WASHINGTON, D.C. (TDR) — The top lawyer for the Joint Chiefs unlawful order guidance advised the nation's highest-ranking military officer that commanders who determine they have received an illegal directive should request retirement rather than resign in protest or pick a fight to get fired.

Brig. Gen. Eric Widmar, the legal counsel for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided the previously unreported advice to Chairman Gen. Dan Caine in November, according to sources familiar with the discussion. The conversation occurred after Caine watched a video of six Democratic lawmakers publicly urging American troops to disobey illegal orders.

Joint Chiefs Unlawful Order Guidance Emerged from Political Firestorm

Caine asked Widmar for the latest guidance on how commanders should determine whether an order is lawful and what they should do if they conclude it is not, the sources told CNN.

Widmar advised that officers should first consult with their legal adviser if uncertain about an order's legality. But if they ultimately determine the order is illegal, they should consider requesting retirement while refraining from public resignation, which could be perceived as a political act.

"A commissioned officer has every right to say, 'this is wrong,' and shouldn't be expected to quietly and silently walk away just because they're given a free pass to do so."

That assessment came from a former senior defense official who left the Pentagon earlier this year and expressed concern about the guidance's implications.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The Joint Staff declined to comment on the matter.

Critics Say Guidance Risks Culture of Silence

The advice has drawn criticism from current and former military lawyers who argue that encouraging quiet retirement rather than vocal dissent could perpetuate a lack of accountability within the armed forces.

Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former Judge Advocate General lawyer, said the guidance appears to "misunderstand what a servicemember is supposed to do in the face of an unlawful order: disobey it if confident that the order is unlawful."

Maurer added that legitimate guidance on the issue should explicitly advise servicemembers of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, noting the advice as described does not appear to include that element.

Military retirees also remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, meaning the recommendation to retire could effectively keep dissenting officers silent indefinitely.

Boat Strikes Fuel Debate Over Legality

The guidance arrives amid intense scrutiny over the Trump administration's military strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Since September 2, at least 104 people have been killed in at least 28 strikes.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Particular controversy surrounds a double-tap strike on September 2 in which the military carried out a follow-up attack that deliberately killed two survivors clinging to wreckage after an initial strike disabled their vessel.

Legal experts and some lawmakers have argued the strikes constitute extrajudicial killings because suspected drug traffickers are civilians who should be arrested, not summarily executed by military force.

Several senior officers who reportedly expressed concerns about the operations, including former U.S. Southern Command commander Adm. Alvin Holsey, have retired early in recent months.

High Turnover Among Senior Officers

More than a dozen senior officers have been fired or retired early since Donald Trump took office in January, an unusually high rate of turnover. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed officers in a September speech to "do the honorable thing and resign" if they disagreed with his vision for the department.

However, legal experts note that disagreeing with military direction differs fundamentally from viewing an order as illegal.

Widmar advised Caine that an order may be considered unlawful if it is "patently illegal," meaning something an ordinary person would instinctively recognize as violating domestic or international law. The My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War is frequently cited as an example.

When the military's top legal counsel advises officers to quietly exit rather than challenge potentially illegal orders, what does that signal about accountability within the chain of command?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10