This brings me no comfort at all. The oath I recall taking when sworn in as a law enforcement officer was the oath of office:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. [1]

I have no military background so naturally I sought some preliminary knowledge when I heard “obey president.”

But evidently, there seems to 2 versions - the oath of enlistment placed into effect in 1962 (below) and the oath for commissioned officers (above):

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. [2]

That takes care of army. Few .mil for the marines came up on 1st page of search results, but here’s what I found from an article[3]:

Both officers and enlisted service members swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but in the Oath of Enlistment, service members swear they will “obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Officers, especially at higher ranks, have a unique position of authority and influence within the organization that could be taken advantage of for political gain. Swearing loyalty to the Constitution instead of the president or any other person means that officials cannot manipulate officers in order to gain control over the military and become dictators. The intent is to ensure our military fights in defense of the people and their way of life instead of being misused for political gain. Article 90 of the UCMJ allows for legal disobedience of unlawful orders for both enlisted and officers. The officer’s oath acts as another safeguard against power corruption by not swearing obedience to the president or other officials, but rather to the Constitution.

Whew! So the enlisted swears obedience to the president but can disobey ‘unlawful orders’ without fear of reprimand! Finally some ease - until I came across a Navy memo to comply with Biden’s paranoid demands [4]:

As public servants, we took an oath to the Constitution and we will not tolerate those who participate in actions that go against the fundamental principles of the oath we share, particularly actions associated with extremist or dissident ideologies.

Damn it. There goes my ease! Maybe it’s just optics... Surely our military can recognize who the fucking domestic terrorists are, right? I skimmed the paper below, but can I even trust it???

OATH OF OFFICE: CAN THE MILITARY DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST DOMESTIC ENEMIES? Thomas G. Sadlo, Colonel, USAF [5]

Sorry pedes, no offense but I simply cannot trust an anon when it comes to getting an answer to my question. Not when I’m surrounded by mil vets... I need confidence that whatever answer I receive isn’t being ‘fed’ to me, if that makes sense, lol.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331 [2] https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html [3] https://www.quantico.marines.mil/News/News-Article-Display/Article/611510/the-difference-between-oath-of-office-oath-of-enlistment/ [4] https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Portals/55/Messages/NAVADMIN/NAV2021/NAV21044.txt?ver=Uraz_JTPld6DOk_jVRyozQ%3d%3d [5] https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1018643.pdf

Edit: WTF is up with formatting/line spacing.