Democratic lawmakers are now seen promoting potential insubordination in a recent video that calls on military and intelligence personnel to ignore what they label as unlawful directives from President Trump. Public servants commit to uphold U.S. laws, including the Constitution, and simply saying “I was just following orders” isn’t a valid excuse for following illegal commands. This recollection inevitably brings to mind the tragic My Lai massacre led by Lieutenant William Carey during the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party’s encouragement here raises serious concerns, suggesting an invitation to a coup.
So, what specific orders are Democrats identifying as illegal? For instance, do they consider ICE operations as part of this list? A recent ruling from the Supreme Court blocked a restrictive order by a left-leaning judge in Los Angeles concerning ICE raids. Additionally, in Chicago, a judge initially imposed a sweeping injunction against ICE’s use of force, which a higher court later paused due to its broad scope. In fact, recent judicial decisions from San Francisco and Portland mandated the deployment of the National Guard to safeguard ICE agents from harm, and those rulings have been upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Currently, a pending similar ruling is awaiting the Supreme Court’s review.
In just the first ten months of Trump’s presidency, court systems—especially in liberal urban centers like D.C., Portland, and Chicago—issued around 40 injunctions opposing the government’s actions, a figure that nearly rivals the 64 total injunctions seen throughout Trump’s entire first term. Oddly enough, Trump is even facing roadblocks over simple tasks, like repainting the Eisenhower Building, due to ongoing legal disputes until a lawsuit can be addressed.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has intervened approximately 20 times against these injunctions. In one case, the justices sought to limit a prior ruling against Trump, but many injunctions continue to stand. Trump’s legal advocates, including notable figures like Attorney General Pam Bondi, have a success rate that surpasses 90% in appeals made to the Supreme Court, a statistic that the left tends to criticize. Yet, they seem to misdirect their frustration, as the issue primarily lies with the judges repeatedly issuing dubious injunctions.
A number of these judges, highly educated from prestigious law schools, seem to struggle with acknowledging Trump’s electoral mandate from last November. If even the most qualified judges can’t discern the legality of Trump’s directives, how can non-lawyer intelligence personnel or young soldiers at the front lines navigate these complexities? It raises questions about how bureaucrats, detached from military affairs, might respond based on the Democrats’ call to action.
In another notable case, a leftist judge backed a Trump administration initiative that mandated passports to indicate biological sex instead of gender identity. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court halted this injunction, raising the question: what if a bureaucrat decided not to follow it? Would Democrats accept such defiance? The potential chaos this kind of decision-making could introduce is concerning. Injunctions must be adhered to until a court suspends them, but this shouldn’t grant bureaucrats the ability to arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce or ignore.
Reflecting back, the Obama administration also enacted contentious directives. For example, drone strikes targeting individuals overseas deemed to be terrorists have faced scrutiny, particularly the legal grounding provided by the Justice Department. Critics argue passionately about the legality of such targeted actions, asking how Democrats today would rationalize their stances considering the history of military compliance and legality.
Ultimately, the left’s animosity toward Trump seems desperate, leading to various tactics to obstruct his policies—ranging from indictments to impeachments, lawsuits, and even attempts on his life. This latest urging from Democrats transcends mere opposition to Trump. It calls for accountability for military and intelligence personnel who disregard presidential orders, as emphasized by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggesting such disobedience could set a troubling precedent. According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief, with impeachment the proper route for addressing presidential misconduct, rather than any notion of a coup proposed by the Democratic Party.
