A group of six Democratic lawmakers with military or national security backgrounds released a video in November 2025 urging U.S. service members and intelligence personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Participants included Senator Elissa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Jason Crow, Representative Chris Deluzio, Representative Maggie Goodlander, and Representative Chrissy Houlahan. Their message emphasized that the oath is to the Constitution, not to any leader, and warned that threats to constitutional order can arise “from within.” The lawmakers said troops “can and must refuse illegal orders,” a claim that is technically correct under military law. They framed the message as a reminder of constitutional duty rather than a political statement.
What the Law Actually Says
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, service members must follow lawful orders. Executing an unlawful order can expose them to prosecution, especially if it involves clear criminal activity. However, refusing a lawful order is itself a punishable offense, and the legality of an order is often not immediately obvious in real operational situations. This is why Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers exist at every command level and why the system emphasizes clarity through the chain of command rather than personal legal interpretation by junior troops. As observers noted, asking individual service members to make on-the-spot legal judgments without guidance can put them at enormous personal risk.
Backlash and Escalation
The political fallout arrived immediately. President Donald Trump denounced the video, calling the lawmakers “traitors” and claiming their behavior was “seditious” and “punishable by death.” He amplified posts on his social media platform calling for their arrest. Critics of Trump said his reaction showed a willingness to weaponize charged rhetoric against political opponents, while supporters argued that encouraging troops to question orders invites disorder. Several of the lawmakers responded that they would not be intimidated and insisted the message simply restated long-established legal principles.
Why the Video is Misguided
The video also faced criticism from nonpartisan observers and military advocates. Many argued the messaging was vague. The lawmakers did not identify any specific order they believed might be unlawful, nor did they offer examples illustrating what troops should or should not obey. Without context, the phrase “refuse illegal orders” can blur the line between legitimate legal instruction and political signaling. For a system that depends on discipline, clarity and stability, ambiguity is a real problem.
Civil-Military Implications
The civil-military implications are serious. Civilian control of the military rests on a clear hierarchy: Congress passes laws, the executive directs operations, and the military follows lawful commands. When lawmakers address troops directly about which orders to follow, they can unintentionally disrupt that structure. The concern is not that they restated a false legal principle – the obligation to reject manifestly unlawful orders is real – but that they bypassed the chain of command to deliver it. Military leaders, not legislators, are responsible for issuing guidance to troops on how to evaluate or report questionable orders. When messaging comes from paid political actors rather than military authorities, it risks sowing confusion, especially during politically tense moments. Critics noted that service members hearing such guidance from elected officials may wonder whether they are being invited into a political dispute.
Political Context
Political timing amplified the controversy. The video appeared during heightened disputes over executive authority, including debates about domestic deployments and intelligence directives. Some analysts viewed the video as an attempt to preemptively signal resistance to possible presidential actions, even though the lawmakers did not specify any order they feared. Others argued the video represented a broader worry about democratic backsliding, even if the delivery was clumsy. Regardless of motive, the presentation left room for misinterpretation and allowed critics to frame it as an attempt to politicize the military.
The Real Legal Standards
The core legal concept the lawmakers invoked is correct: military personnel must not carry out blatantly unlawful actions, and their oath is to the Constitution; but the legal standard is narrow, not broad. Unlawful orders are not simply orders someone dislikes or finds questionable. They involve clear violations of U.S. or international law, such as intentionally targeting civilians or committing acts explicitly prohibited by statute. A lawful order that may be controversial, politically fraught or later judged unwise is not “unlawful” under the UCMJ. The video’s broad phrasing risks muddying that vital distinction.
The lawmakers likely intended to reassure service members that constitutional norms still matter, especially during a volatile political period. Yet public messages to troops must avoid ambiguity. Without concrete examples, legal context or acknowledgment of process, such as the role of commanders and JAGs, the video oversimplifies a complex legal area that service members navigate at real personal risk. It also inadvertently feeds civil-military anxieties at a time when stability is essential.
The legal principle they cited is real, but as former servicemembers they should know better. The method they chose was not the right place to deliver it.
Story Continues
Read the full article here