To the sailors and Marines left behind when Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was fired on 24 November 2019: Regardless of your politics or party affiliation, the President is “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy” pursuant to the Constitution you took an oath to support and defend. So, what do you do if you disagree with an order of the President?
From the perspective of this former Inspector General of the Department of Defense, Naval Academy graduate, and former Naval Reserve captain, your choices are simple: If you disagree with a lawful order of the President, it’s either “Aye, aye, Sir,” or resign.
The day Secretary Spencer was fired, the Department of Defense posted an official statement: “Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper has asked for the resignation of Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer after losing trust and confidence in him regarding his lack of candor over conversations with the White House involving the handling of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. . . . Secretary Esper has directed that Gallagher retain his Trident pin.”
That evening, Secretary Spencer’s departure letter to the President was posted online. In it, he wrote: “I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline.”
We used to say in the Navy, “What part of ‘Do it’ don’t you understand?” Or, in the case of the Commander-in-Chief’s 21 November 2019, tweet, “The Navy will NOT be taking away Warfighter and Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher’s Trident Pin.” What part of “Don’t do it” did Secretary Spencer not understand?
Of course, if your military superior orders you to do something illegal, you must not comply, and you should consult with legal counsel if you can. In any event, make sure you have good answers to two questions to justify your action or inaction: “By what authority, and for what purpose?”
As soon as President Trump tweeted, “The Navy will NOT be taking away . . . Gallagher’s Trident Pin,” the time for discussion was over.
There is a word for refusing to carry out lawful orders and disrespecting superiors: insubordination.
Subordination is a vital part of good order and discipline. So much so that subordination is part of the statutory definition of “exemplary conduct” required of “all commanding officers and others in authority in the naval service.” (10 U.S.C. §5947):
Requirement of exemplary conduct
All commanding officers and others in authority in the naval service are required to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination; to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their command; to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral practices, and to correct, according to the laws and regulations of the Navy, all persons who are guilty of them; and to take all necessary and proper measures, under the laws, regulations, and customs of the naval service, to promote and safeguard the morale, the physical well-being, and the general welfare of the officers and enlisted persons under their command or charge.
Failing to carry out lawful orders and arguing in public after the time for discussion has passed are acts of insubordination.
In his 27 November 2019, post-firing Washington Post Op-Ed, former Secretary Spencer wrote, “the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically, or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices. . . . The senior enlisted ranks in our services are the foundation of good order and discipline.”
While the senior enlisted ranks are essential for enforcing good order and discipline, they can only do this upon a foundation created by unified leadership at the top. Nothing is more corrosive to military good order and discipline than insubordination among senior leaders. It is for this reason the long-standing exemplary leadership conduct standard applies to “All commanding officers and others in authority.”
Ships with insubordinate officers undermining the commanding officer are in danger of mutiny; insubordination by a Navy Secretary creates confusion and division—conditions which undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of the naval service, threaten our national command structure, and create an appearance of weakness noted by allies and adversaries alike.
Neither Secretary Spencer’s departure letter nor his subsequent Op-Ed are good examples of “virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination.” While he did admit to one mistake, that he “began to work [with the White House] without personally consulting Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper on every step,” this admission implies that his underlying action was justified—if only he had consulted with the Secretary of Defense.
Moreover, Secretary Spencer signed his letter to the President “Respectfully yours,” which according to the Navy Correspondence Manual, updated under Secretary Spencer’s watch, is for a letter addressed to someone “junior in rank to signer,” as opposed to “Very Respectfully,” for letters addressed to “officers senior in rank to signer,” or “With great respect,” for letters addressed to “High ranking civilians, Senators, Congressmen/women, Governors, etc.”
I am not suggesting that Secretary Spencer acted without virtue, honor, or patriotism, but no military official should ever sign a letter to the President as if the President is junior in rank.
Whenever senior officials make a mistake, they should admit it—for the sake of accountability and, in the words of Congress’ statutory leadership standard, “to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination.”