‘Sedition’? Democrat bid to foment Trump resistance inside U.S. military draws blowback

Democrats released a video last Tuesday purporting to support U.S. service members and intelligence officers who would defy illegal orders, but some of those Democrats have also made thinly-veiled threats that U.S. troops and spies will be in legal jeopardy if they don’t defy such alleged orders.

The half dozen Democrats from the House and Senate — five of them veterans of the U.S. military and one a former CIA analyst — released a video that argued that “you must refuse illegal orders” and professed to servicemembers that “we have your back.” 

But a number of the Democrats in the video have strongly implied that troops who don’t disobey orders that the Democrats believe to be illegal could face criminal prosecution, with the Democrats conjuring warnings tied to prior prosecutions of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, of U.S. Marines in the film A Few Good Men, of troops stationed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and of soldiers involved in the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam, implying current U.S. troops could face the same fate.

The congressional Democrats were also not on the same page about whether the U.S. military was currently engaging in illegal activities, with some Democrats admitting that they were not sure if any current U.S. military actions were illegal, while others have previously said or are currently saying that U.S. troop deployments to American cities and U.S. strikes against Venezuelan drug-running boats are illegal.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., Rep. Chris DeLuzio, D-Pa., Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., put out their video last week titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship” as the members of Congress took turns directing a message directly to U.S. troops and members of U.S. spy agencies, calling on them to refuse purported illegal orders without specifying which orders, if any, they believed broke the law.

Pentagon says actions are legally well-founded

The Justice Department told the press this month that the U.S. strikes off the Venezuelan coast are in fact legal, and the Pentagon similarly defended the legality of the strikes.

President Donald Trump responded on Truth Social on Thursday by alleging that the video is “called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand - We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.”

The Democrats released a joint statement on Thursday saying, “What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders.”

Secretary of the Department of War Pete Hegseth said on X on Monday that five of the six Democrats in the video don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of War and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) because “one is CIA and four are former military but not ‘retired’, so they are no longer subject to UCMJ” but that “Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ — and he knows that.”

The UCMJ is the regulatory code underlying the U.S. military’s criminal justice system. 

The War Department similarly tweeted Monday that it had “received serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly and that “a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.”

Kelly said in response that he would not be “silenced by bullies.”

Democrats ask military to join "resistance" to Trump

“We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk right now,” the Democrats said. “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”

The video continued: “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force — your vigilance is critical, and know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up the ship!”

The six Democratic congressional offices did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent to them by Just the News.

Democrats suggest U.S. troops might find themselves in "legal jeopardy"

A number of the Democrats in the video have suggested that U.S. troops could be prosecuted for following purportedly illegal orders issued by President Trump or Secretary Hegseth. As of publication time, none of the orders issued by either Trump or Hegseth have been declared "illegal" by any court or authoritative body of law.

Houlahan told MSNBC on Saturday that the point of the video was to tell U.S. service members that “we’ve got your back.” But this message was seemingly diluted by other Democrats in the video hinting at potential prosecutions.

Slotkin appeared Sunday on ABC News' This Week talking about how U.S. service members can figure out whether an order is illegal, and the Democratic senator immediately brought up the Nuremberg trials against Nazi war criminals and the movie A Few Good Men where Marines are prosecuted at Guantánamo Bay.

The appeal to pop culture instead of law

“I don't — I mean, going back to Nuremberg, right, that ‘well, they told me to do it, that's why I murdered people’ is not an excuse. If you look at popular culture, like, you watch, you know, A Few Good Men, like we have plenty of examples since World War II, in Vietnam, where people were told to follow illegal orders, and they did it, and they were prosecuted for it,” Slotkin said. “So, the best thing for people to do is go to their JAG [judge advocate general] officer, their local law enforcement, or a legal officer in their unit, and ask for some explanation, ask for help. And that's what we've been advising people to do.”

The U.S. National World War II Museum states that “over the course of thirteen total trials from 1945 to 1949, beginning with the International Military Tribunal in 1945, Nazi leaders stood trial for crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy to commit these crimes” and that “in all, 199 defendants were tried, 161 were convicted, and 37 were sentenced to death.”

The Rotten Tomatoes movie review website says of A Few Good Men that "Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is a military lawyer defending two U.S. Marines charged with killing a fellow Marine at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Although Kaffee is known for seeking plea bargains, a fellow lawyer, Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway (Demi Moore), convinces him that the accused marines were most likely carrying out an order from a commanding officer. Kaffee takes a risk by calling Col. Nathan R. Jessep (Jack Nicholson) to the stand in an effort to uncover the conspiracy."

Slotkin has also suggested that U.S. service members might find themselves in legal jeopardy for participating in U.S. strikes against Venezuelan drug-running boats. “It’s crazy when young officers up and down the chain are seeking legal cover so they don’t get sued one day for what could be illegal strikes,” Slotkin tweeted last Wednesday as she shared a clip from a speech she gave at the Brookings Institute in early November. The Democratic senator had sent the exact same tweet earlier this month as well.

“People who are participating in these strikes are doing memos for the record and then taking them to their JAGs and being like, ‘Hey, I don’t ever want to be personally liable on these strikes. Can you kinda cover me legally?’ I mean, that is some crazy stuff when young officers up and down the chain are seeking legal cover so they don’t get sued one day for what could be illegal strikes,” Slotkin said in the video clip of her speech. Slotkin did not disclose any specific memos or requests for legal advice from soldiers allegedly concerned about legal liability and only referred to a purported conversation with an unnamed sailor.

Crow went on NewsNation last Wednesday and told U.S. troops that “you have to follow the law.” He said “let’s use some examples” and pointed to examples of U.S. troops who had been prosecuted for purportedly following illegal orders or taking illegal actions. The Democratic congressman specifically pointed to Abu Ghraib, a U.S. Army Detention Center for captured Iraqis from 2003 to 2006, and to the My Lai massacre, the killing of South Vietnamese civilians by U.S. forces in 1963.

Crow said that “we’re concerned about this because of the rhetoric of this president.”

The Democrat, a former U.S. Army Ranger and Bronze Star recipient, also told Fox News last Thursday that “we're standing by our troops, our service members, who are often put in very difficult situations, and Donald Trump has put them in very difficult positions, and has alluded to putting them in even more difficult positions in the months and years ahead.” 

Crow then hinted that U.S. service members could be investigated under the UCMJ if they followed allegedly illegal orders, saying, “We are reminding folks about what the Uniform Code of Military Justice says, what the Constitution says, what the law of war says.” 

A local Colorado news outlet, The Denver Gazette, reported last week that Crow wouldn’t specify what “unlawful” or “unconstitutional” orders they were referring to. Crow’s office didn’t respond to key questions and said Crow wouldn’t be available for an interview. 

Kelly also said on This Week on ABC late last month that “it’s questionable” whether the U.S. strikes off the Venezuelan coast were legal, claiming that “the White House and the Department of Defense could not give us a logical explanation on how this is legal.” The Democratic senator then suggested that U.S. troops involved in the strikes might be opening themselves up to prosecution.

“They were tying themselves in knots trying to explain this. We had a lot of questions for them, both Democrats and Republicans. It was not a good meeting. It did not go well. They have a secret list of 20 something — 24 organizations that they have now authorized to use — use kinetic action against without the normal approach that we have for law enforcement,” Kelly said. “Hey, we don’t want drugs in this country, especially fentanyl. But all these drugs, we — we should be working really hard to interdict them and prosecute the individuals that are smuggling drugs, not putting young service members at great legal jeopardy.”

Democrats can’t agree on whether Pentagon is currently issuing illegal orders

The Democrats appearing in the video couldn’t agree on whether they were arguing that the U.S. military was currently receiving illegal orders. Crow has said that he believes the U.S. military is currently carrying out illegal strikes — and he directly connected this claim to the context of the video.

The Democratic congressman told Fox News on Thursday that “we’re not talking about Venezuela in this video — we never mentioned it once — but since you raised it, I actually am deeply concerned.” But just two days earlier, Crow had linked the video to the U.S. strikes against Venezuelan drug-running boats.

Trump White House adviser Stephen Miller responded to the Democratic video last Tuesday by tweeting that “Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection.”

“Oh no, we triggered Snowflake Stephen!” Crow tweeted in response. “The President is trampling on the Constitution. Stop politicizing our troops. Stop illegal military strikes. Stop pitting our servicemembers against the American people.”

No specific orders named, but "we started a conversation" says Crow

Crow later backed away from this explicit linkage in media interviews. When he appeared on NewsNation last Wednesday, the Democrat was asked if he was saying Trump had already given illegal orders.

“We’re not talking about specific orders,” Crow replied. “We’re talking about the general obligation of uniformed service personnel to follow the Constitution and follow the law.”

The Democrat was then directly asked whether he believed the strikes against Venezuelan drug-running boats were illegal. “To be really clear, I’m not talking about any one instance,” Crow replied. “In that instance, I have deep concerns about this president’s use of force against a variety of actors in the Caribbean without congressional authority.”

Crow also appeared on CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday, where he argued that “we wanted to start a conversation, and we did, about the dangerous rhetoric this president is using and the threats that he's made to use our military in an unlawful way.” When asked to give an example of a current illegal order by Trump, Crow did not give one, saying, “He has a history of doing this, and if we wait until the moment that he gives a manifestly unlawful order to a young soldier, then we have failed them. We have to start that conversation now and get people thinking about the distinction, which is exactly what we did.”

Crow’s office had actually directly called the strikes against Venezuelan drug-running boats “illegal” back in September. His office said at the time that Crow “introduced a War Powers Act resolution to block future unauthorized military strikes following the illegal use of force in the Caribbean Sea.” The Democrat’s office added that “resolution comes in the wake of unauthorized military strikes against boats in the Caribbean Sea that were not authorized by Congress.”

Slotkin: "I am not aware of things that are illegal"

Last Tuesday — the same day as the release of the video — Crow’s office again called the Venezuelan strikes “illegal.” His office said that he had “introduced a War Powers Continuing Resolution to block the Trump Administration from conducting unauthorized & illegal military strikes.” The Democrat’s office said the resolution “comes in the wake of at least 21 unauthorized military strikes against boats in the Western Hemisphere that were not authorized by Congress.”

Slotkin said on Sunday on This Week on ABC “to my knowledge, I — I am not aware of things that are illegal” that had been ordered by Trump, “but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.”

When pressed on what exactly she was suggesting was illegal, Slotkin replied, “So, for me, my primary concern is the use of U.S. military on American shores, in our city — in our cities and in our streets. We've seen now the courts overturn the deployment of U.S. military into our streets, including here in Washington, D.C. … So, it was basically a warning to say, like, if you're asked to do something particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back.”

Kelly implied in late October that he might believe the U.S. strikes off the coast of Venezuela were illegal.

“Now the Trump administration is talking about ‘regime change’ in Venezuela. When has that ever worked for us — in Cuba, Afghanistan, or anywhere else? This isn’t making us safer. It's having the opposite effect,” Kelly said in a late October tweet.”

“This administration, and with Pete Hegseth as the Department of Defense, they’re doing things that are — forget about being outside the norms — they seem to be violating the law,” Kelly said. “And they have a president that just doesn’t seem to care and is conducting himself in a way that is putting servicemembers at greater risk. Now we’re flying B-52s along the coast of Venezuela talking about regime change.”

Houlahan went on CNN on Thursday and pointed generally to court cases the Trump administration had lost during his second term, but she didn't give a specific example of an unlawful order given to the military in Trump's second term.

“Since January 20, judges — some appointed by the President — have ruled nearly 200 of his orders illegal. Now we have active duty personnel seeking legal advice in the event they are given an unlawful order,” Houlahan tweeted on Friday. “The truth remains the same: they are required to follow lawful orders, and they are also required NOT to follow unlawful orders.”

Goodlander argued on Thursday on CNN that the deployment of American troops on American soil could constitute an illegal order. When asked directly for a specific example of an illegal order under the second Trump administration, however, she did not give one. 

"The Uniformed Code of Military Justice is crystal clear on this point, and it is our responsibility, as the ones who write the laws, to be clear about what they say,” she said. “The Uniform Code of Military Justice is crystal clear on this point: it is the obligation of every service member to obey lawful orders and lawful orders only, and that's our simple and clear message, and it's an important one because there are legitimate concerns that this president is gonna issue and has issued unlawful orders to American troops who are operating on American soil."

Goodlander also said on Friday on CNN that “the president has talked openly about deploying the U.S. military to American cities, and whenever we’re talking about a situation where we’ve got American troops on American soil taking action against American citizens, it should give everybody pause.”

When asked if she had heard from U.S. troops or members of the national security community who believe they had been given unlawful orders, she replied, “I have heard from service members … What we see is an uptick of concern from the men and women who are serving in uniform about the legality of orders that are being given, and they want clarity, and they want to know that the country has their back — and we absolutely do, because we live under the rule of law.”

Deluzio also said on CNN on Friday that "you've had judicial rulings as recently as today saying the president's deployment of troops in American cities is unlawful.”

Pentagon defends strikes on Venezuelan drug traffickers 

The Justice Department told the media earlier in November that the U.S. strikes against alleged Venezuelan drug trafficking boats are legal, and the Pentagon also defended the legality of the U.S. going after the alleged drug boats off the Venezuelan coast.

The Washington Post reported this month that “the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel stated in a classified opinion drawn up in the summer that personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution.”

A DOJ spokesperson said in November that “the strikes were ordered consistent with the laws of armed conflict, and as such are lawful orders” and that “military personnel are legally obligated to follow lawful orders and, as such, are not subject to prosecution for following lawful orders.”

“The War Department categorically denies that any Pentagon lawyers, including SOUTHCOM lawyers, with knowledge of these operations have raised concerns to any attorneys in the chain of command regarding the legality of the strikes conducted thus far because they are aware we are on firm legal ground,” Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said earlier this month. “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in complete compliance with the law of armed conflict.”

Department of War investigates Kelly

The War Department released a lengthy statement on Monday about Kelly in particular, saying that the “serious allegations of misconduct” against him would be “handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.”

“All service members are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful,” the War Department said. “A service member’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”

Hegseth argued on X that “the video made by the ‘Seditious Six’ was despicable, reckless, and false.”

“Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline’. Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in danger,” Hegseth said, adding that “the Department is reviewing his statements and actions, which were addressed directly to all troops while explicitly using his rank and service affiliation—lending the appearance of authority to his words. Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.”

Kelly responded on X, claiming that “if this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work” and arguing that “I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.”

It remains to be seen how far the clash between the Democrats and Hegseth’s Pentagon will go.