At least four of President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees have deflected confirmation hearing questions about whether they’d refuse to take illegal orders from the president, raising concern from Democratic lawmakers.
“The failure to respond directly and unequivocally is, in some ways, disqualifying,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal told NOTUS on Thursday.
Senators asked Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth at their respective hearings about how they would respond if they received an illegal order from Trump. None of them explicitly answered, instead saying that they’ve previously followed the law or that they don’t believe Trump would issue an illegal order.
It’s not an empty hypothetical. The line of questioning to Gabbard and Patel on Thursday came just two days after the White House ordered a freeze on all federal financial assistance — a move that a federal judge almost immediately paused and many were quick to call unconstitutional.
Trending
Sen. Ron Wyden referenced the aid freeze during Gabbard’s hearing for director of national intelligence.
“I’m interested in knowing what you would do if President Trump told you to withhold congressionally approved funds from the intelligence community inspector general,” he asked Gabbard. “Will you refuse that illegal order?”
“I don’t believe for a second President Trump would ask me to do something that would break the law,” Gabbard responded.
Wyden reiterated his question: “You can say, ‘Oh, it’ll never happen.’ What will you do if you’re dealing with an illegal order?”
Gabbard said she would “comply with the law” if confirmed as DNI — but did not explicitly respond to Wyden’s question with a yes or no answer.
Wyden called it a “very disappointing answer” after the hearing.
“This is constitutional lawlessness … if they say, ‘We’re just gonna blow off illegal orders,’” he told reporters Thursday afternoon.
The exchange at Gabbard’s hearing has played out at least three other times during this month’s confirmation hearing cycle. Also on Thursday, Sen. Chris Coons asked Patel, who Trump tapped to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation, about how he’d respond to an illegal order.
Patel said he will “always obey the law” but did not explicitly say whether he would resign or refuse an illegal order.
“Your predecessors in this role have been clear that they would be willing to resign if forced or directed to do something unethical or illegal,” Coons said during the hearing, referencing previous confirmation hearings where he asked former FBI directors James Comey and Christopher Wray similar questions about their approach to illegal orders.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told NOTUS she thinks Patel’s avoidance of the question is a sign that “he will do whatever the president asks him to do.”
“We need people who run independent agencies,” she added. “And, of course, the FBI should be an independent agency. It’s not there just to be the retribution agent for Trump and/or Patel’s list of people they’d like to go after.”
Watchdog experts have pointed out that carrying out illegal orders in agencies like the FBI — including steps like acting on Patel’s alleged “enemies list” — could violate the Hatch Act and other laws designed to prevent politicization of federal agencies.
The pattern of deflecting questions isn’t new among cabinet nominees. Mark Esper, Trump’s first-term defense secretary, made a similar statement about illegal orders during a press briefing in 2020.
But other former cabinet officials have explicitly said that it’s important to refuse illegal orders. For instance, Chuck Hagel, the Republican defense secretary who served under President Barack Obama, said in an NPR interview that generals should not follow through on illegal orders given by the president.
Earlier this month, Sen. Elissa Slotkin asked Hegseth — who was eventually confirmed with a tight vote on the Senate floor after waves of opposition from most Democrats and some Republicans — a similar question about illegal orders.
“As the secretary of defense, you will be the one man standing in the breach should President Trump give an illegal order,” she said. “Not saying he will, but if he does, you are going to be the guy that he calls to implement this order. Do you agree that there are some orders that can be given by the commander in chief that would violate the U.S. Constitution?”
Hegseth deflected the yes or no question multiple times.
“I reject the premise that President Trump is going to be giving illegal orders,” he said. “Anybody of any party could give an order that is against the Constitution or against the law.”
That nonanswer sparked worry among lawmakers, including Slotkin. She said after the hearing that she wanted Hegseth to offer explicit reassurance that he would refuse illegal orders.
“I’m literally worried about, in the dead of night, if President Trump asked him to do something that will literally, in an irreversible way, take the military, that he’s not going to have the backbone to stop it,” she told NOTUS earlier this month.
Bondi’s hearing for attorney general saw a similar exchange. Coons and Blumenthal both asked Bondi how she would approach an illegal order from the president. Bondi said at the hearing that she would “never speak on a hypothetical, especially not one suggesting that the president would do something illegal.”
The judiciary committee advanced Bondi’s nomination this week.
Some lawmakers said they were unbothered by the nonanswers. Sen. Thom Tillis said this type of hypothetical question is “a waste of time.”
“Look, I’ve seen Democrats do that gimmick. I’ve seen Republicans do that gimmick, and it’s a hypothetical that they’re not going to believe even if you gave the answer,” Tillis told NOTUS.
He added that he believes that even if nominees were to say that they would not accept an illegal order, senators of the opposite party would still not vote for them.
And for Sen. Mike Rounds, the nominees’ answers to the question — or lack of answers — don’t matter. After Gabbard’s hearing on Thursday, Rounds acknowledged the DNI nominee’s exchange about illegal orders, but said it won’t impact what she’ll actually do if she’s confirmed.
“I think she will make the right decisions. I do,” he said. “And I think she’s going to be an independent thinker, that’s for sure.”
—
Shifra Dayak is a NOTUS reporter and an Allbritton Journalism Institute fellow. Mark Alfred, a NOTUS reporter and an Allbritton Journalism Institute fellow, contributed reporting.
Author
