The article describes a video in which six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence experience told active-duty personnel they can — and sometimes must — refuse unlawful orders. It recounts the lawmakers’ message, lists the participants, and highlights the incendiary reaction from Donald Trump and his allies, including a Truth Social post declaring the conduct "punishable by death." The piece explains the legal basis under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and notes reporting that military lawyers questioned certain administration legal positions. It concludes that the lawmakers’ reminder is protected speech and a warranted precaution given recent events.
Trump’s “Punishable by Death” Post Reinforces Democrats’ Warning to Troops
The article describes a video in which six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence experience told active-duty personnel they can — and sometimes must — refuse unlawful orders. It recounts the lawmakers’ message, lists the participants, and highlights the incendiary reaction from Donald Trump and his allies, including a Truth Social post declaring the conduct "punishable by death." The piece explains the legal basis under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and notes reporting that military lawyers questioned certain administration legal positions. It concludes that the lawmakers’ reminder is protected speech and a warranted precaution given recent events.
06:03 AM, 11/21/2025Politics
Six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds released a video urging active-duty service members to refuse illegal orders — a reminder that has drawn an incendiary response from former President Donald Trump. On Thursday morning Trump posted on Truth Social:
"SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"
The lawmakers — Sen. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), Rep. Jason Crow (Colo.), Rep. Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (N.H.) and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.) — speak directly to service members in the short video, citing their own service and stressing that confidence in the nation’s defense and intelligence professionals is at stake when politics pits the uniformed against fellow citizens.
“Like us, you all swear an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” they say. “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.” They repeat that troops can refuse unlawful orders, and Rep. Deluzio emphasizes that in some circumstances they must.
The reaction from prominent Trump allies has been fierce. Stephen Miller, the president’s deputy chief of staff, described the video as calling for insurrection, and House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump’s post by framing it as a statement about sedition. Social-media users amplified the post with violent comments that prompted House Democratic leaders to contact the House sergeant-at-arms and the U.S. Capitol Police to request security protections for the lawmakers and their families.
The lawmakers’ message is grounded in established legal principles. Service members take oaths to "support and defend the Constitution," and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice they are required to obey only lawful orders. Historical and legal precedent rejects compliance with manifestly illegal orders as a defense — the principle often associated with the post-World War II prosecutions that rejected the so-called "Nuremberg defense." Following an unlawful command can expose service members to prosecution.
Context matters. The lawmakers’ warning would have seemed less politically charged in another era, but recent actions and legal disputes surrounding the executive branch’s use of military and security forces have made such cautions more salient. Reporting based on senior officials and lawyers indicates that some military legal advisers have questioned the legality of certain operations and that their dissenting views were sometimes sidelined.
Critics note other troubling episodes: the administration’s use of disputed legal rationales to deploy the National Guard at home, controversial maritime strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels, and the former president’s response to political violence during the Jan. 6 attack — including pardons for some participants after leaving office. Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has also recounted instances in which Mr. Trump reportedly suggested force against protesters.
Importantly, the lawmakers’ video constitutes protected political speech and does not call for violence or government overthrow. The president’s response — suggesting criminal or even deadly punishment for those remarks — raises alarm about the chilling effect on dissent and the potential misuse of coercive power. For service members, the message to know and follow the law is both legally sound and, given the recent record, prudently warned.