GI Resisters Have Long Refused Illegal Orders — Now They Must Refuse Trump

There is a great offensive underway by elites and the far right. They have grasped control over the vast resources of the security state and are mobilizing it in a counterinsurgent military campaign. This campaign has clear tactical operations and detailed strategic plans with deep historic roots. Yet, the security state and its broad sweeping apparatus depends on people complying, assisting, and enacting the state’s demands. This need for our consent is why the legacy of GI resistance, in all its manifestations, is important to study and build on right now.

In 2006, Ehren Watada was the first officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq because he believed the war was illegal and that, under the doctrine of command responsibility, it would make him a party to war crimes. That year, his speech to the Veterans for Peace convention galvanized a generation of GI resistance during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the speech, he professed:

I speak with you about a radical idea. It is one born from the very concept of the American soldier or the service member. It became instrumental in ending the Vietnam War but it has long since been forgotten. The idea is this, to stop an illegal and unjust war the soldiers and service members can choose to stop fighting it.

This simple yet profoundly powerful observation is at the center of the history of GI resistance. As long as there have been militaries, people within those institutions have rebelled, mutinied, resisted, deserted, and refused orders for legal, moral, political, and personal reasons. This history of radical self-determination and political action is seldom taught, often marginalized, and even villainized. Even within our movement spaces, there is a tendency to discredit the organizing work of those who have participated in enacting state violence. Yet, GI resistance is a radical reorientation away from enacting state violence and toward solidarity. It is a fundamentally transformative process that has undermined colonial ambitions, ended wars, started revolutions, and toppled dictatorships. GIs withdrawing their consent are literally removing the gears of the military machine. And their collective resistance, like striking workers, deprives the state of its ability to perpetuate violence.

Soldiers have expressed concerns about the constitutionality and morality of their orders.

Right now, like dictators do, Donald Trump is solidifying his own military force, ordering “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth to “ensure the availability of a standing National Guard quick reaction force that shall be resourced, trained, and available for rapid nationwide deployment.” Yet, military members must comply in order for Trump’s demand to be realized. This simple truth creates an opportunity to upend his plans. Indeed, ever since Trump’s deployment of active duty and National Guard troops to Los Angeles, the GI Rights Hotline and Military Law Task Force have experienced an uptick in calls with military members and family members concerned about their orders.

During outreach drives to troops currently deployed to D.C. from About Face: Veterans Against the War members and allies, soldiers have expressed frustrations ranging from the length of time away from their jobs and families, to concerns about the constitutionality and morality of their orders. It is these concerns that indicate a significant opportunity to disrupt and dismantle the current deployments of troops to cities across the U.S. But, in order to create the conditions for GI resistance, military members need to know they are not alone — that they have options and rights.

In his 2006 speech, Watada went on to say, “If we want soldiers to choose the right but difficult path, they must know beyond any shadow of a doubt that they will be supported … by the people, not with mere words, but by action.”

Watada’s call to action indicates the importance of creating networks of care and support, evoking the block and build strategy of movement work. If we are to block the deployment of National Guard troops, one of the strategies must be to build networks of care that support GI resistance.

We can look to past eras of the GI resistance movement, from Vietnam to the post-9/11 wars, to understand how to build structures of care. During the Vietnam era, there were hundreds of locally organized military projects as well as the powerful national organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War. These projects, organized by civilians, veterans and active-duty military members working together, supported GI resisters and helped print and distribute over 300 anti-war GI newspapers at military installations around the world. Examples include Up Against the Bulkhead, published by the Movement for a Democratic Military; Fed Up, distributed by the American Servicemen’s Union; About Face from the U.S. Servicemen’s Fund; Offul Times, put out by Omaha Military Project; and The 1st Casualty, from Vietnam Veterans Against the War, to name a few. This tactic was modeled off the history of Black-run newspapers distributed during the civil war and civil rights eras. These GI newspapers were distributed on bases and ships, sharing stories of GI resisters and inspiring troops to join the resistance movement.

GI resistance was a key part of many movement organizations during the American war in Vietnam, from the Black Panther Party to the American Indian Movement. When Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale wrote the Ten-Point Platform for the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in 1966, they ensured that military resistance was a central aspect — “​​We Want All Black Men To Be Exempt From Military Service.” The Black Panther paper regularly published articles about the GI resistance movement and republished articles from different GI papers, especially highlighting Black GI organizing and resistance. For example, the paper uplifted the story of the Fort Hood 43, a group of Black GIs who refused to go to Chicago as “riot control” for the Democratic National Convention in 1968. The article highlighted the history of the state’s use of “riot control” to suppress people’s democratic rights, noting: “From the Flint strike in 1936, to Detroit in 1967, to Chicago in 1969, riot control has been used to intimidate and crush people’s movements.” This bit of history is profoundly important considering the recent threats to deploy troops to Chicago and Memphis, and the existing deployments in D.C. and Los Angeles.

During the post-9/11 era, civilians and veterans that were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan formed Courage to Resist, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and the Civ-Sol Alliance. These organizations supported hundreds if not thousands of resisters. They helped establish GI coffeehouses outside military bases — a tactic they learned from the movement against the war in Vietnam — creating third spaces where military members could meet and talk freely about their struggles. Counter-recruitment campaigns were launched to push back against the oppression or poverty draft. Civilian lawyers supported GI resisters by providing free or reduced-price legal representation. These structures helped build community, provided space for military members to talk freely, and grew the deep connections required for GI resistance to take place.

We must never normalize the presence of troops or federal agents waging war in our cities, or anywhere else.

Today, About Face: Veterans Against the War, previously known as Iraq Veterans Against the War, is building on this legacy. This summer, About Face launched its Right to Refuse campaign — reasserting the right of military members to refuse orders and actively working to rebuild the GI resistance movement.

Yet, in this moment it is not enough for About Face and other movement organizations to be doing this work alone. The GI resistance needs mass support, including support from elected officials. It is not enough for governors to declare National Guard deployments to be illegal and unconstitutional, like Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has done. Elected officials also need to back up their words with actions that don’t leave military members to face illegal and immoral orders alone. They need to provide sanctuary, amnesty, and legal support for military members who wish to refuse those illegal orders.

State governors also need to directly refuse Trump’s deployment orders, as Vermont Gov. Phil Scott has now done, twice, when Trump has called on the Vermont National Guard to deploy. Elected officials can also offer outreach services to their military members to help members express their constitutional right to appeal for redress.

All of these actions, and more, are of vital importance if we are to build a long-lasting resistance campaign against the current authoritarian political offensive. We must never normalize the presence of troops or federal agents waging war in our cities, or anywhere else for that matter, all to appease the racist and imperial ambitions of elites and the far right. Acquiescence to these deployments is simply not an option. While the future may look bleak, we can look to the past, to the actions of our ancestors, to find our way through and support a spectrum of resistance that builds community, provides aid, and leads us toward a horizon of collective liberation.