Imagine being caught in the middle of a political firestorm, your duty to serve clashing with your personal beliefs. This is the reality for hundreds of National Guard members in Illinois right now. Deployed by the Trump administration, these troops find themselves in a holding pattern, their fate uncertain after a federal judge blocked their deployment onto Chicago’s streets. But here’s where it gets controversial: while they wait, three Illinois National Guard members—two active and one retired—have stepped forward to share their candid views with the Chicago Sun-Times. And this is the part most people miss: their perspectives shed light on the complex ethical dilemmas soldiers face when orders collide with conscience.
Active-duty members Dylan Blaha and Demi Palecek, both running for political office, have chosen to speak out despite typical restrictions. Blaha, a 32-year-old Democratic candidate in the 13th congressional District, and Palecek, a 34-year-old staff sergeant running for state representative in the same district, argue their stances are already public knowledge. Joining them is Joe Prehm, a retired Guard member who served for a decade and is now free to express his opinions openly.
Palecek, whose mother is from Mexico, takes a firm stand against potential orders to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. “Absolutely, I’d refuse. There’s no way,” she declares, urging fellow Guard members to do the same. “We signed up to serve humanitarian causes, to protect and help people, not to be weaponized against our own communities,” she explains. Her words highlight a deeply personal connection to the issue, raising questions about the role of the military in domestic law enforcement.
Blaha, while acknowledging the difficulty of refusing orders, suggests a more nuanced approach. He advises soldiers to follow orders unless they clearly “cross the line,” emphasizing the gray area between lawful and unlawful commands. “It’s a judgment call,” he notes, pointing out that the legality of an order is often determined after the fact. This perspective invites debate: should soldiers prioritize obedience or moral conviction?
Prehm, who served in Kuwait and Iraq, echoes Palecek’s refusal to guard ICE agents, arguing that such tasks should fall to other law enforcement agencies. He speculates that the Trump administration may have deployed the Texas National Guard instead of Illinois troops precisely because Chicago-based soldiers might be less willing to comply. This interpretation adds a layer of political strategy to the deployment, sparking further discussion.
The situation is further complicated by the ongoing government shutdown, which has left Guard members unpaid. Palecek questions the practicality of keeping troops on standby without compensation, calling the arrangement “weird.” Meanwhile, Blaha and Palecek celebrated the judge’s ruling, which found violations of the 10th and 14th Amendments and the Posse Comitatus Act—a law limiting the use of federal military forces in domestic affairs.
But here’s the real kicker: President Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would grant him authority to deploy the military to quell civil unrest. Blaha expresses hope that this won’t happen, emphasizing the importance of continued legal victories. This looming possibility raises a critical question: where should the line be drawn between national security and individual rights?
As these Guard members navigate their roles in this tense political landscape, their stories challenge us to consider the human side of military service. Is it ever justifiable to refuse orders, even if they’re legally ambiguous? And what does it mean for a soldier’s duty when their mission feels at odds with their values? Share your thoughts in the comments—this conversation is far from over.
