The Rule of Law in the U.S. Armed Forces: A Six-Month Assessment from the Former JAGs Working Group

August 28, 2026

Today, the Iran War completes its sixth month. Before it began, a number of the actions taken by the Department of Defense and the armed forces since the start of President Trump’s second term had raised significant Rule of Law issues.  The list has only grown since the administration started this illegal war.  The national security implications also mount as we continue to deplete our arsenal, alienate our allies, inflict serious damage on our economy, and put our troops in harm’s way, all without a clear, cogent strategy to end the conflict.  The six-month point is a good time to identify and evaluate the most salient of these actions and whether they have damaged the Rule of Law.

Dismantling and Suppressing Dissent from the Military and its Leadership

Before the United States initiated hostilities, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the armed forces for which he is responsible took actions that raised significant Rule of Law concerns and raised serious questions at home and abroad about how far the U.S. is willing to go and what laws it is willing to violate to achieve the administration’s objectives:

1. The Judge Advocates General of the Army and Air Force were summarily removed before the normal end of their tours and replaced by individuals with far less experience operating in the environment into which they have been introduced or in leading the corps of legal professionals who advise commanders.

2. In addition to purging the Army and Air Force Judge Advocates General, Secretary Hegseth removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force.  The weight of evidence suggests that he did this because of their race, gender, or association with a diversity (DEI) ideology to which he attributed their advancement despite their records of outstanding leadership and service.  Since then, he has fired many other senior military officers and civilian leaders for a variety of reasons linked mostly to his desire to imbue the military with his personal notion of a “warrior ethos” that is focused on what he calls “maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” but whichmight more accurately be described as the thuggish application of brute force.

3. Secretary Hegseth’s removal of officers regularly selected for promotion to general and flag officer rank, particularly women and minority officers, sent a message that if you don’t fit his image of a “warrior,” you won’t serve in leadership positions.  That message is reinforced by his efforts to remove women from combat roles and to eliminate entirely from the military men with shaving waivers and transgender people.

Prelude to the Iran War:  Desensitizing America to War

1. Lethal military force has been employed in violation of international and U.S. law against foreign-flag vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean.  In legal opinions that have yet to be released to the public, the administration justified these strikes as part of a “non-international armed conflict,” in which civilians it has designated as terrorists and treated as enemy combatants are engaged in “armed attacks” by allegedly trafficking illicit drugs into the U.S.  That operation violates the law.  Both U.S. and international law require that suspected drug smugglers be prosecuted in federal court, not punished by summary execution at sea.  Yet, the U.S. military has killed over 200 civilians in these attacks. Despite the fact that Congress never authorized the operation, the attacks continue.  Without proper legal justification, these deadly attacks constitute murder in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Federal Criminal Code.  No government official has questioned or investigated these killings, and no one has been prosecuted.

2. On at least one occasion, rather than rendering assistance to individuals who had survived an initial attack, U.S. forces conducted a second attack on a vessel suspected of engaging in drug trafficking.  At a minimum, that failure to render assistance violated several international maritime law treaties that incorporated into U.S. law.  At worst, if one accepts the administration’s contested legal argument that the U.S. is at war with narcoterrorists, the attack constituted a grave breach of the Laws of Armed Conflict.  If legal advice was provided in connection with this attack, it has never been made public.

3. In the wake of the initial boat strikes, federal legislators exercised their First Amendment rights by reminding military personnel of their duty to comply with lawful orders.  The administration responded by attempting to prosecute these legislators under federal criminal law.  A grand jury refused to indict them.  Secretary Hegseth’s alternative effort to reduce Senator Mark Kelly’s retired naval rank and pension was rejected by a federal district court and is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

4. Without a declaration of war or other congressional authorization, the U.S. invaded Venezuela and abducted its President, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. Substantial military forces were employed in this mission.  That operation violated Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and the U.N. Charter.  The President and First Lady of Venezuela are being prosecuted in federal district court.  The administration also continues to threaten to invade Greenland.  That threat itself is a violation of the U.N. Charter and international law.  Similarly, President Trump recently said, “Pretty soon, I’ll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States. Essentially, that’s what it is.  We have the blockade.  No ships get through unless we want them to.”  This statement is a threat and a violation of international law. 

Inception of the Iran War

1. In June 2025, the U.S. attacked Iran’s nuclear sites with long range bombers.  The President described the attack as having “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities.

2. On February 28, 2026, without a declaration of war or other congressional or U.N. Security Council authorization, U.S. forces attacked Iran and thereby started the “Iran War.”  Because there was no actual or imminent threat of an Iranian attack, U.S. attacks violated Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and the U.N. Charter.  The administration has asserted, among other pretexts, that its attacks were necessary to eliminate Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon — a threat the President told the world the U.S. had “completely and totally obliterated” seven months earlier.

Conduct of the Iran War

1. In April 2026, the President wrote, referring to Iran, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” His administration has threatened overwhelming destruction of Iran’s infrastructure without apparent regard for its impact on the civilian population, and U.S. forces have destroyed targets on which civilians rely without adequately articulating an underlying military purpose.  The administration has also failed to release information, including the results of an investigation it conducted into an attack that reportedly killed numerous civilians, that would allow the public to determine whether its actions were lawful.

2. At various times, Secretary Hegseth has stated that U.S. forces should give the enemy “no quarter” in the current hostilities with Iran and has referred to rules of engagement as “stupid.”  These remarks directing or encouraging violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict themselves likely violated the Laws of Armed Conflict. They have not been retracted or disavowed.

Shroud of Secrecy

Secretary Hegseth continues to wreak havoc on the Rule of Law, the U.S. military, and America’s national security behind a shroud of secrecy intended to insulate him and his activities from public scrutiny.  Whether this further illustrates his disdain for the Rule of Law and longstanding principles of government transparency or betrays his consciousness of guilt, he continues to suppress responsible voices of opposition. 

1. For example, the statutory Military Justice Review Panel, the Defense Advisory Committee on the Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces, and the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services were disbanded, their members and staff removed, and their important work terminated.  The Department of Defense is thus no longer subject to the oversight and accountability these bodies provided.  Secretary Hegseth’s eviction of the press from the Pentagon is additional evidence of his desire to avoid tough questions, public scrutiny, and accountability.

2. Secretary Hegseth has embarked on a campaign to punish anyone he perceives as a threat to his authority.  In addition to firing civilian and military leaders who dare to oppose him, he has extended his reach outside the Pentagon to revoke security clearances (most recently the clearance of former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall); remove vestiges of the service of patriotic Americans whose race, gender, or post-retirement comments he opposes (such as removing Lt Gen (Ret.) James Clapper’s name from a Defense Intelligence Agency auditorium); and seeking the criminal prosecution of Americans (like Senator Kelly) whose public statements he resents.

Our Six-Month Evaluation

The administration deserves a failing grade for the acts and omissions related to the Rule of Law and summarized in this report and for its failure to seek accountability for criminal conduct. To the extent that Congress has failed to remedy these matters, it too deserves a failing grade.

Ultimately, though, our six-month evaluation is less important than our assessment of the overall impact of this administration’s conduct.  This President has effectively recast the U.S. from a law-abiding nation to a lawless one.  His threats and use of force against Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba demonstrate the sincerity of his repeated proclamations that the Constitution, domestic law, international law, and treaties no longer guide or constrain the U.S.  His gratuitous alienation of our longtime Danish ally over Greenland speaks for itself.  Rather than exercising leadership to build and maintain a stable, peaceful, just, and prosperous world order, the Trump administration has redefined the national interest to include territorial expansion, foreign resource extraction, and economic and military coercion. 

This radical reorientation of our foreign policy and national security strategy is contrary to American values.  Unless we throw the engines of government into reverse, incalculable damage will have been done to the Rule of Law, our armed forces, and our national security.  And the war that is now entering its seventh month could become a festering wound that will not heal itself.