Veteran Skeptical of 'Right to Refuse' Laws Despite Lawmakers' Efforts

Proposed legislation aims to protect those who refuse illegal orders, but one veteran doubts its effectiveness

Mar. 12, 2026 at 3:03pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A small campaign in Boulder, Colorado is seeking 'Refuser Protection' (RP) legislation to prohibit retaliation against those who refuse to follow orders that violate the Constitution or laws. The effort is led by Matt Nicodemus, founder of Sworn to Refuse (StR), who has been working on this for over a decade. While some lawmakers like Congressman Joe Neguse have shown interest, no definitive results have emerged. However, one veteran who was drafted during the Vietnam War is skeptical that such laws would be effective, citing his own experience of not being taught about the Constitution or laws of war during his military training.

Why it matters

The push for 'Refuser Protection' laws has gained relevance in light of recent events, such as the Trump administration's attempt to indict lawmakers for reminding the military of their right to refuse illegal orders. This highlights the ongoing debate around the military's obligations and the need to hold those in power accountable for unlawful actions.

The details

The campaign for 'Refuser Protection' (RP) laws is led by Matt Nicodemus, founder of Sworn to Refuse (StR), who has been working on this for over a decade. The proposed legislation would prohibit retaliation or punishment of anyone who refuses to follow orders that violate the Constitution, statutes, or regulations. While some lawmakers like Congressman Joe Neguse and Maryland's Jamie Raskin have shown interest, no definitive results have been achieved. The veteran's skepticism stems from his own experience during the Vietnam War, where he was not taught about the Constitution or laws of war during his military training. Instead, he was conditioned to dehumanize the enemy and was not made aware of the military's obligations to refuse unlawful orders.

  • The Trump administration's unsuccessful attempt to indict a group of lawmakers, including Colorado Congressman Jason Crow, for making a video reminding the world that one can refuse to follow illegal orders occurred recently.
  • The Vietnam War, during which the veteran was drafted, took place in the 1960s.

The players

Matt Nicodemus

The founder of Sworn to Refuse (StR), a campaign centered in Boulder, Colorado that is seeking 'Refuser Protection' (RP) legislation.

Congressman Joe Neguse

A Colorado lawmaker who has shown interest in Nicodemus's efforts to pass 'Refuser Protection' legislation.

Congressman Jamie Raskin

A Maryland lawmaker who has also shown interest in Nicodemus's efforts to pass 'Refuser Protection' legislation.

Congressman Jason Crow

A Colorado lawmaker who was part of the group that the Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to indict for making a video reminding the military of their right to refuse illegal orders.

The veteran

A veteran who was drafted during the Vietnam War and is skeptical of the effectiveness of 'Refuser Protection' laws based on his own military training experience.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“From my first day of boot camp, we were taught about the law of war. We were taught about the Constitution. Before we ever deployed, I sat my men down, my soldiers, my paratroopers, and I taught them about their obligations under the law and the Constitution. This is ingrained in service.”

— Congressman Jason Crow, Army Ranger (Video)

“On my first day in boot camp we were not 'taught about the law of war.' We did pushups and were taught to keep our mouths shut. For the next year I did pushups and tried to keep my mouth shut through boot camp, advanced individual training (AIT) and Officer Candidate School (OCS). In a year of training to potentially serve in an immoral war, I can't recall a single mention of the Constitution.”

— The veteran (This article)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow the lawmakers who made the video to be indicted.

The takeaway

While protecting the right of conscientious objectors is important, the real focus should be on holding those in power accountable for issuing illegal orders and defying the Constitution, rather than solely relying on 'Refuser Protection' laws to protect the powerless.