Listen to the article
In a dramatic clash between lawmakers and the White House, President Donald Trump has accused six congressional Democrats of “seditious behavior” after they released a video advising military personnel to refuse illegal orders.
The 90-second video, posted on social media on November 18, features Democratic lawmakers Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Sen. Mark Kelly, Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Rep. Jason Crow, Rep. Chris Deluzio, and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan – all either military veterans or former intelligence officials. In the recording, they remind service members of their oath to the Constitution and state that military personnel “can refuse illegal orders” and “must refuse illegal orders.”
“Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home,” Deluzio and Crow declare in the video, which concludes with the lawmakers invoking the naval battle cry, “Don’t give up the ship.”
Two days after the video’s release, Trump responded with inflammatory posts on his Truth Social platform, writing: “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” and labeling the Democrats as “traitors” who should be “ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” In a separate post, he described their actions as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Legal experts, however, have rejected Trump’s characterization. Eric R. Carpenter, a professor of law at Florida International University College of Law, explained, “Sedition is trying to overthrow the government with force or violence. In the video, the elected officials are just telling service members to follow the law. They are not telling service members to overthrow the government.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later clarified that Trump did not believe the lawmakers should be executed but maintained they were encouraging military personnel to “defy the president’s lawful orders.” This interpretation appears to misrepresent the video, which specifically addresses “illegal orders,” not lawful ones.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice makes clear that disobeying “any lawful general order or regulation” is a crime. As Carpenter noted, there is a “strong presumption” that military orders are lawful and must be followed. “They refuse orders at their own risk,” he cautioned, adding that service members should “follow orders unless they are obviously unlawful.”
According to the New York Times, Slotkin organized the video after hearing concerns from active-duty troops about the legality of U.S. strikes targeting suspected narcotics traffickers off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia. In a subsequent ABC News interview, Slotkin said she wasn’t “aware of things that are illegal” that Trump has ordered but expressed concerns about “legal gymnastics” regarding Caribbean strikes and “the use of U.S. military on American shores.”
Federal law defines “seditious conspiracy” as occurring when multiple people conspire to “overthrow,” “put down,” “destroy by force,” “levy war against,” or “oppose by force” the U.S. government. The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment, not death (though active-duty military members convicted of sedition under the UCMJ could face capital punishment).
Multiple legal experts have dismissed Trump’s sedition claims. Victor M. Hansen, a professor at New England Law and former Army JAG officer, stated, “Trump’s efforts to cast this legal speech as seditious is nonsense… Simply reminding service members of their legal rights and obligations is not criminal in any way.”
Former federal prosecutor Berit Berger noted that sedition “requires advocating or planning to overthrow the government through force,” citing the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack participants who were convicted of seditious conspiracy as examples of actual sedition.
The controversy escalated on November 24 when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced an investigation into Sen. Kelly, a retired Navy official, for his participation in the video.
The six Democrats issued a joint statement defending their actions: “What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders.”
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
As an expert in mining and commodities, I don’t have a strong opinion on the political aspects of this. But I do think it’s important for the military to have clear guidance on what constitutes legal and illegal orders, to protect both service members and the public.
Hmm, this is a tricky situation. I can see valid arguments on both sides. While the President’s reaction seems heated, the lawmakers do raise important points about the limits of military power. Hopefully this leads to constructive dialogue, not further division.
As someone interested in mining and commodities, I don’t have a strong stake in this political dispute. But I do think it’s important for the military to have clear guidance on the limits of their authority, to protect both service members and the public.
This is a complex and sensitive issue. While I understand the President’s concerns, I think the lawmakers are simply reminding service members of their duty to uphold the Constitution. Refusing illegal orders is a fundamental part of military ethics.
This is a sensitive and complex issue that goes to the heart of civil-military relations in a democracy. While I can understand the President’s concerns, I think the lawmakers are simply reminding service members of their constitutional obligations. Reasonable people can disagree, but inflammatory rhetoric is unlikely to be productive.
From my perspective as someone who follows the energy and mining sectors, this debate seems to be more about constitutional principles than partisan politics. I think both sides could benefit from approaching it with more nuance and less rhetoric.
Calling this ‘seditious behavior’ seems like an overreaction. The lawmakers are not encouraging disobedience, just explaining the lawful obligations of military personnel. We should have a nuanced discussion on the boundaries of military authority.