Heads would roll. Literally.
In France public service employees have a very high level of protection (they're very hard to fire), and are legally allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders, I suppose this case would qualify?
All of this was implemented immediately after WW2 as a way to prevent a potential authoritarian ruler from using public administrations for nefarious things. So it seems quite fitting.
In the case of USAID workers, its entirely possible that the organization will be explicitly NOT under executive authority (my understanding is that they are a legislative branch creation).... but I guess the executive branch can still order them to stop working and return to the US? Its all very murky
This would seem to imply that a French public servant who obeys an "obviously illegal" order is both knowingly (it's obvious) and willfully (there's no requirement to obey) breaking the law.
What are the penalties for that?
The term used in French isn't quite as strong as "obviously", it's "manifestement illegal". See Wordreference: https://www.wordreference.com/fren/manifestement . Apparently English has "manifestly" but I never heard it so unsure if it's a good translation.
> What are the penalties for that?
I had to look it up, it seems you're considered complicit in whatever the order was about. Basically the "Nuremberg defense" AKA "I just followed orders" is void here.
"Manifestly" seems fine as a translation, though in English I would consider it to be about equally as strong as "obvious", or possibly stronger because it's an unusual, formal-sounding word that might suggest you're trying to sound emphatic.
crowdsourced wiktionary ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manifestly ):
> In a manifest manner; obviously.
curated Merriam-Webster (the standard dictionary of American English; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifestly ):
> easily understood or recognized by the mind : obvious
If they choose to follow orders they know are illegal they can be personally liable.