January 28, 2026
The Rule of Law as it Informs Military Leadership and Operations
Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, MD
Executive Board at the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law, University Pennsylvania Law School
The Rule of Law as it Informs Military Leadership and Operations
Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, MD
Executive Board at the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law, University Pennsylvania Law School
Stephen Xenakis and George Bustin, introducer
Minutes of the 16th Meeting of the 84th Year
President George Bustin called the meeting to order at 10:15 AM. Francis Slade led the invocation.
123 persons attended, including five guests: Damon Missouri introduced by Anders Boss, Iris LeVine introduced by Rodney Rickman, Liz Cutler introduced by Ron Schnur, Bob Karlin introduced by Dave Silverman, and Toby Tuckman introduced by Charles Clark.
John Kelsey read the minutes of the January 21st meeting.
President George Bustin introduced the speaker, Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, MD. The meeting was conducted in a Q&A format with President Bustin.
Before attending Princeton on an ROTC scholarship, Dr. Xenakis grew up in a military family, living in Japan as a teenager in the mid-60s. At that time, he read Ho Chi Minh’s writings, which challenged his assumptions about the rationale behind U.S. involvement in Vietnam. This shaped his thinking about the consequences of policy decisions.
As an adviser to military leaders on the care and support of service members and their families, he described his own thinking style as “muddled,” contrasting it with the clarity and decisiveness expected of senior military leaders. Though such decisiveness may be necessary for command, Xenakis argued that reflection is important when advising leaders on the human impact of their decisions.
Xenakis then discussed the recent disruptive firing of senior military leaders and the highly consequential weakening of the Judge Advocate General leadership across the services. The JAG Corps has played a central role in advising commanders on the legality of their decisions. Commanders and military lawyers are now increasingly forced to seek informal legal advice. Importantly, he explained that retired officers remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, constraining how openly they can speak about political leaders.
A major portion of the discussion focused on domestic military deployments, particularly involving the National Guard. Dr. Xenakis referenced exercises conducted by the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, examining scenarios in cities such as Philadelphia and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, highlighting how complex and fragile coordination can be among governors, federal authorities, local police, courts, and civilian groups. An Old Guard guest, Damon Missouri, a New Jersey Army National Guard chaplain, pointed out that Guard forces are better trained than active-duty combat units to operate in civilian environments, an opinion with which Dr. Xenakis agreed.
In response to a question about the longstanding principle, highlighted at the Nuremberg trials, that military personnel must refuse illegal orders, Dr. Xenakis responded that, though the prohibition still exists, senior officers increasingly view it as unreliable in practice. The threshold for what constitutes an illegal order is extremely high, and officers cannot assume that courts will support them after the fact. Under the circumstances they may choose to retire, rather than be faced with a decision about carrying out a questionable order.
In response to a question about evaluating the fitness for duty of military personnel, Dr. Xenakis pointed out that, unlike the military, which routinely assesses physical and mental capacity for important roles, civilian leadership lacks comparable mechanisms, particularly regarding the President of the United States.
During the Q&A, concern was expressed about the risk of armed force being used against American civilians and whether any clear line exists to prevent this. Dr. Xenakis replied that restraint depends heavily on training, leadership, and explicit directives, and may ultimately require clearer Congressional action.
Respectfully Submitted,
Henry Von Kohorn
123 persons attended, including five guests: Damon Missouri introduced by Anders Boss, Iris LeVine introduced by Rodney Rickman, Liz Cutler introduced by Ron Schnur, Bob Karlin introduced by Dave Silverman, and Toby Tuckman introduced by Charles Clark.
John Kelsey read the minutes of the January 21st meeting.
President George Bustin introduced the speaker, Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, MD. The meeting was conducted in a Q&A format with President Bustin.
Before attending Princeton on an ROTC scholarship, Dr. Xenakis grew up in a military family, living in Japan as a teenager in the mid-60s. At that time, he read Ho Chi Minh’s writings, which challenged his assumptions about the rationale behind U.S. involvement in Vietnam. This shaped his thinking about the consequences of policy decisions.
As an adviser to military leaders on the care and support of service members and their families, he described his own thinking style as “muddled,” contrasting it with the clarity and decisiveness expected of senior military leaders. Though such decisiveness may be necessary for command, Xenakis argued that reflection is important when advising leaders on the human impact of their decisions.
Xenakis then discussed the recent disruptive firing of senior military leaders and the highly consequential weakening of the Judge Advocate General leadership across the services. The JAG Corps has played a central role in advising commanders on the legality of their decisions. Commanders and military lawyers are now increasingly forced to seek informal legal advice. Importantly, he explained that retired officers remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, constraining how openly they can speak about political leaders.
A major portion of the discussion focused on domestic military deployments, particularly involving the National Guard. Dr. Xenakis referenced exercises conducted by the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, examining scenarios in cities such as Philadelphia and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, highlighting how complex and fragile coordination can be among governors, federal authorities, local police, courts, and civilian groups. An Old Guard guest, Damon Missouri, a New Jersey Army National Guard chaplain, pointed out that Guard forces are better trained than active-duty combat units to operate in civilian environments, an opinion with which Dr. Xenakis agreed.
In response to a question about the longstanding principle, highlighted at the Nuremberg trials, that military personnel must refuse illegal orders, Dr. Xenakis responded that, though the prohibition still exists, senior officers increasingly view it as unreliable in practice. The threshold for what constitutes an illegal order is extremely high, and officers cannot assume that courts will support them after the fact. Under the circumstances they may choose to retire, rather than be faced with a decision about carrying out a questionable order.
In response to a question about evaluating the fitness for duty of military personnel, Dr. Xenakis pointed out that, unlike the military, which routinely assesses physical and mental capacity for important roles, civilian leadership lacks comparable mechanisms, particularly regarding the President of the United States.
During the Q&A, concern was expressed about the risk of armed force being used against American civilians and whether any clear line exists to prevent this. Dr. Xenakis replied that restraint depends heavily on training, leadership, and explicit directives, and may ultimately require clearer Congressional action.
Respectfully Submitted,
Henry Von Kohorn