A recent video that has gained traction on social media features six Democratic Congress members urging U.S. military personnel to “reject illegal orders” from President Donald Trump. The clip, shared by Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., has over 1.6 million views. In it, the lawmakers, drawing on their military backgrounds, tell service members and intelligence officials that “threats to our Constitution come right here at home.”
The video is both dramatic and eerie, presenting its message with a serious tone. However, it notably lacks examples of any unlawful orders, past or present, that might warrant such a warning.
The lawmakers included in the video are Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, along with Representatives Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan. Each has a substantial military or national security background.
Their message is clear: if an order is illegal, it should be rejected. This explicitly implies that the commander-in-chief may issue unlawful orders, and military personnel must be ready to resist. Yet, none of the lawmakers, when asked, could cite an actual instance of an illegal order or mention any specific statute allegedly violated by the president.
This approach, seen as political theater disguised as military ethics, raises concerns about responsibility.
As someone who spent a significant part of my life in the military—as an Airborne Ranger and later in various roles related to operations and global security—I find the implications of this message troubling. I also served as an inspector general for the Department of Defense, focusing on serious ethical violations in the Army.
In my experience, the video’s message strays from a constructive public service and veers into political provocation. It suggests that the military should view routine obedience to orders as suspicious, nudging soldiers to consider that directives from this president might be illegal. This is not ethical; it’s purely partisan.
I think we should set clear standards. Military personnel have an unambiguous responsibility to refuse orders that are clearly illegitimate. This principle is embedded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and various legal frameworks. Orders that lead to war crimes, like targeting civilians, must be turned down—this is taught universally across military education.
However, there’s a foundational belief in civil-military relations that necessitates obedience to legitimate orders issued through the appropriate command channels. Civilian oversight of the military hinges on this discipline, which is crucial for a functioning American republic. If the military starts treating political dissent as unlawful, it risks disrupting its discipline and becoming entangled in domestic politics.
The core issue with the video is that it cultivates doubt among junior service members, prompting them to interpret political rhetoric as legal fact. It overlooks established avenues for addressing questionable orders, such as through Judge Legal Counsel or the Inspector General, choosing instead to cast doubt on a particular commander-in-chief.
Moreover, there’s a legal dimension to this situation. Under federal law, specifically 18 USC § 2387, attempts to undermine the loyalty and discipline of the armed forces are prohibited. While Congress members enjoy broad freedoms in their speech, telling military personnel to expect potentially unlawful orders—without citing any specific acts—crosses a line.
Using military credentials for partisan purposes is also concerning. Veterans speaking out may unintentionally imply a consensus that the president poses a danger, but military experience does not grant anyone, including Congress members, the authority to judge the future legality of military directives.
If these lawmakers genuinely believe any directive is unconstitutional—whether regarding border actions or foreign deployment—they have other means to address their concerns, such as proposing legislation or holding hearings. Lobbying military personnel based on speculation is not permissible.
The U.S. military remains one of the most trusted institutions in the country precisely because it steers clear of political disputes. Upholding that principle is crucial and should not be jeopardized for political gain.
We must recognize the obligation to disobey blatantly illegal commands. Yet, the greater responsibility, embedded in our constitutional order, is to uphold legal authority—regardless of which party holds power. When politicians blur these lines, they’re not safeguarding democracy but undermining it.
Our military deserves clarity and a robust understanding of its roles. Our constitution relies on civilian oversight, not political meddling. Leaders, particularly those with military backgrounds, should fully grasp this principle.
