Abstract It is often assumed that imperatives contain a covert imperative licenser, such as an imperative operator. The purpose of the operator is to bind the imperative subject, and thereby derive a number of the syntactic properties of imperatives. In this paper, I show, based on variation in V2 imperatives in varieties of Dutch and German, that if there is an alternative way of licensing the imperative subject, presence of an imperative operator is not necessary. I put forth the novel observation that V2 imperatives are only allowed in varieties that have verbal umlaut. I argue that verbal umlaut corresponds to a syntactic encoding of person features on the imperative verb, which can bind the imperative subject. This voids the need for an imperative operator in SpecCP, and gives way to V2 imperatives in V2 languages like Dutch and German. The implication is that a covert imperative licenser is a last resort mechanism, rather than an inherent part of imperatives clauses.