Trump's Second Term Potentially Bringing Back Military Directives Through Twitters?
Unfiltered Insights on Commander-in-Chief's Twitter TacticsWhen President Donald Trump takes over for his second term in 2023, military law experts sense a return to an old habit: issuing commands via Twitter, a technique that might puzzle the military ranks as they seek to comprehend and execute the commander-in-chief's intentions.
In his first term, Trump turned to Twitter, now known as X, to reveal policy decisions, often in a quick, off-the-cuff manner: a 2018 warning to launch "nice and new and 'smart'" missiles at Syria caught his aides off guard and disrupted allied plans. In 2017, Trump announced via Twitter his decision to bar transgender troops from the military, and in 2020, he stated all U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of the year through Twitter posts.
In 2019, Trump also used Twitter to voice his opinions in the Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher case. Gallagher, a Navy SEAL convicted of posing for a photograph with an Islamic State prisoner's corpse, received support from the Commander-in-Chief, who requested the Navy to let Gallagher keep his Trident pin, the symbol of being a SEAL.
Trump's tweets are viewed as official presidential statements, according to the Department of Justice's report in 2017. However, Defense officials hesitated to implement every tweet without written confirmation. For instance, in the Gallagher case, then-Navy Secretary Richard Spencer requested written explicit orders for the intervention to be considered official.
Tweets from the president, while meeting all criteria for a military order, are disputed as the best way for issuing orders, argued Butch Bracknell, a retired Marine judge advocate and national security expert.
"If the President of the United States issues an order by tweet, and it's a lawful order, and it's heard and understood by the person to whom it's directed, that's the end of it," Bracknell told Air & Space Forces Magazine. "It is legal but it is a terrible practice. In my view it puts a burden on the person receiving the order to clarify."
Bracknell echoed similar views in a 2020 opinion piece for Task & Purpose, pointing out that, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, an order from the President counts as valid so long as it pertains to a subject within his or her jurisdiction, is lawful, authentic, and provides clear direction. Traditionally, orders are meticulously written and distributed to minimize ambiguity and ensure the recipients understand their tasks.
"We want a rifle squad leader or a destroyer squadron commander to be clear about what they're being tasked with doing, and that's why we have a process," he explained. "There's a science and an art to orders-writing, and we do it in order to reduce ambiguity so that people know what latitude they have to act."
Coordination and negotiation with the relevant parties are essential for executing the orders, explained Scott Anderson, a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and a former legal advisor at the State Department.
"Usually commands go through a process of clarification, discussion, expansion by different people in the chain of command to clarify what the role is for the people implementing it several layers down," he said. "So if the president authorizes the military to intervene in Iraq, for example, there's a big coordinated effort to implement that."
Precise coordination is crucial in delicate national security situations, Tony Johnson, President and CEO of the Truman National Security Project, who once served as an intelligence advisor to the deputy secretary of defense, emphasized.
"We want to ensure there's no misinterpretation, no bad signaling to allies and adversaries," he explained.
Potential RepercussionsEven though the process may be thorough, it is not legally compulsory to transmit a lawful order.
"There's no defined medium by which a commander in chief is required to give orders," Anderson said. "There's no requirement that they be in writing or of a particular type."
What happens if the conventional process is circumvented? Social media posts generally lack specificity, making it necessary for service members to seek clarification before taking action, experts stated. The lack of clarity also means posts might not stand up in court if troops do not immediately act on them. However, they can still cause confusion and prolong the accomplishment of presidential goals' goals.
"Does that mean there's no risk of somebody down the chain of command doing something unexpected because they thought that's what the president wanted? No, and that risk is exactly why this is a bad idea and the president shouldn't do it," he cautioned. "The greater impact is simply stress, disarray, and confusion within the ranks, which ultimately makes it harder and less efficient for the people trying to do what the president wants to do."
Implications of Unlawful OrdersOrders that could infringe upon cultural sites or use lethal force inside the U.S. would pose even more confusion, the experts continued. Service members are not legally obligated to obey unlawful orders, but the threshold to prove an order is unlawful can be high, according to Anderson.
In a 2022 analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy research group, the Insurrection Act, allowing the president to deploy the military domestically in certain circumstances, was deemed "dangerously overbroad and susceptible to abuse."
Last month, Sen. Jack Reed, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, suggested reforms for both the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act, largely precluding federal military forces from functioning as civilian law enforcement.
During Trump's first term, Trump threatened via tweet to strike dozens of Iranian cultural sites, an act the Pentagon considered unlawful and refused to follow up on. Trump eventually dropped the matter. If he were to insist on a similar case in the future, it would put the Defense Department in a challenging position, according to Anderson.
"If the president persisted through the chain of command," Anderson said, tension would escalate, with service members facing a difficult decision, "are we confident this is unlawful enough that we don't have to abide by it? And are we willing to risk our personal liberty on that, because we would potentially be charged in a court-martial."
RecommendationsAs to whether Trump will remain as active on social media during his second term, the answer is uncertain. An element that complicates the scenario is Trump's change of platforms. Following the attack on the U.S. Capitol in January 2021, Trump was banned from Twitter. However, after billionaire Elon Musk purchased Twitter in 2022, Trump's account was reinstated. However, Trump indicated he preferred his new platform, Truth Social, and started tweeting again in August 2023.
Experts agree that service members should consult their chain of command if they question the legitimacy or clarity of a social media order from the president, especially in delicate political or national security situations. As Katherine Kuzminski, Deputy Director of Studies at the Center for a New American Security, advised, "Service members swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, no matter who's in office. That is part of the stability the professional all-volunteer force provides to the nation. They do not belong to a partisan community."
- In 2023, military law experts anticipate a resurgence of President Donald Trump's Twitter tactics during his second term, potentially leading to confusion among the military ranks as they endeavor to interpret and execute his intentions.
- Trump's Twitter posts, including the 2018 warning about launching missiles at Syria and the 2017 ban on transgender troops, have disrupted allied plans and sparked debate over the best way to issue orders.
- While the Department of Justice considers Trump's tweets as official presidential statements, defense officials have been hesitant to implement every tweet without written confirmation, citing minimal ambiguity and the need for clarity.
- Retired Marine judge advocate and national security expert Butch Bracknell argues that while presidential tweets are legally binding, they could put an undue burden on the person receiving the order due to their brevity and potential for misinterpretation.
- In delicate national security situations, precise coordination is crucial, and traditionally, orders are meticulously written and distributed to minimize ambiguity and ensure understanding, according to Scott Anderson, a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
- The potential repercussions of circumventing the conventional process include confusion, stress, and disarray within the ranks, as well as the risk of unlawful orders that service members are not legally obligated to obey.
- In the event of orders infringing upon cultural sites or using lethal force domestically, the threshold to prove an order is unlawful can be high, and such orders could pose significant legal complications, according to Anderson. Experts recommend that service members consult their chain of command if they question the legitimacy or clarity of a social media order, especially in sensitive political or national security situations.
