Washington, DC – A political firestorm erupted Wednesday after six Democratic members of Congress — all military veterans — released a joint video reminding U.S. service members of their duty to refuse illegal orders, drawing sharp criticism from former President Donald Trump and his supporters.
Many who watched the video believe it to be a dog whistle for service members to begin openly defying orders from the White House, an attempt to undermine U.S. national security, in violation of federal law.
The lawmakers — Sens. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania — said their message was intended to reaffirm service members’ obligations under the Constitution and military law.
Republicans accuse Democrats of undermining the military
Trump responded to the video on his social media platform, calling the lawmakers’ comments “seditious behavior from traitors.” He wrote, “This is really bad, and dangerous to our country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”
“Punishable by death,” Trump said.
Critics argued that the video could violate federal law under 18 U.S. Code § 2387, which prohibits urging insubordination or refusal of duty among the armed forces — an offense punishable by up to ten years in prison. Legal experts, however, noted that the statute has rarely been applied to public speech reminding troops of their legal obligations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Context behind the video’s message
The Democratic lawmakers, all veterans of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, said their intent was to preempt potential constitutional conflicts should service members be ordered to act outside the law.
“We’re simply reiterating what’s already clear in the UCMJ — that troops are not required to follow unlawful orders,” Crow said.
The controversy quickly expanded beyond Washington, with some Republican lawmakers demanding an ethics review and others accusing Democrats of “politicizing the military.”
Kim, other Democrats defend message as constitutional reminder
New Jersey Senator Andy Kim expressed support for the group’s message, saying it served as “a constitutional reminder, not a call for disobedience.” Kim stated that the video “underscores loyalty to the law, not to any one political leader.”
However, the actions of the members might actually be a criminal offense, if their intent was to sow discontent and alter the morale of the armed forces.
18 U.S. Code § 2387 – Activities affecting armed forces generally U.S. Code Notes prev | next (a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. (b)For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.
Key Points
- Six Democratic veterans in Congress released a video urging troops to reject unlawful orders.
- Donald Trump called the lawmakers’ comments “seditious” and accused them of inciting disloyalty.
- Legal analysts said the message aligns with the UCMJ’s duty to disobey illegal orders, though critics argue it risks politicizing the armed forces.
