If you ought to perform a certain act, and some other action is a necessary means for you to perform that act, then you ought to perform that other action, too – or so it seems plausible to say. This ‘transmission principle’ is of both practical and theoretical significance. The aim of this paper is to defend this principle against a number of recent objections, which can all be seen as expressing different versions of the same ‘actualist’ challenge: Ought we to take the necessary means to actions we ought to perform even if we will not actually perform these actions or are unlikely to do so? I argue that the actualist assumptions on which the objections rely are untenable, and defend a possibilist treatment of the relevant examples, which preserves the transmission principle. Drawing on the results of the discussion, I finally put forward a positive argument for the transmission principle.