Veterans and Military Lawyers Condemn Trump’s 'Sedition' Rhetoric and Politicization of the Armed Forces

Veterans, retired military lawyers and former prosecutors sharply criticized former President Donald Trump after he called a group of Democratic lawmakers who urged service members to refuse unlawful orders "seditious, punishable by death." The lawmakers — several of whom have military or national-security backgrounds — posted a video addressing uniformed personnel and intelligence professionals, warning that the administration was "pitting our uniformed military and intelligence professionals against American citizens" and urging troops to "refuse illegal orders."

The video was shared by representatives Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chris DeLuzio and Chrissy Houlahan and by senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin. The lawmakers did not identify specific orders they considered unlawful.

Trump responded on Truth Social with a post calling the lawmakers' message "Seditious behavior, punishable by death!" and adding: "Each one of these traitors to our Country should be arrested and put on trial." He also reshared a comment that read: "Hang them George Washington would!"

Those remarks prompted outrage in the military legal community, where veterans and JAG (Judge Advocate General) attorneys warned that incendiary language risks both the safety of lawmakers and the political neutrality of the armed forces.

"He uses sedition and treason very broadly and inappropriately," said David Frakt, a retired Air Force officer and former JAG attorney. Frakt added that the people who actually urged an overthrow of the government on January 6, 2021, were the ones who committed seditious acts — many of whom were later pardoned.

Frakt and others also pointed to recent operations targeting vessels alleged to be used for drug trafficking near Venezuela, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific. He described those strikes as legally questionable and argued that they illustrate a broader erosion of legal restraint: "Sinking these boats is 'murder, not combat,'" he said.

Don Christensen, a retired Air Force colonel and former chief prosecutor for the Air Force, called Trump's invocation of sedition "horribly wrong." He also criticized Senator Lindsey Graham — himself a former Air Force attorney — for seeking clarification from the Democratic lawmakers about which orders they meant without publicly rebuking the president's rhetoric.

Several military lawyers cautioned that the law allows service members to refuse unlawful orders, but sets a very high threshold. Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor at Southwestern Law School and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, explained that an order is presumed lawful and must be "manifestly, patently unlawful" before a service member is legally required to disobey it — a standard drawn from tragic precedents such as the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam War.

"If a service member thinks an order is unlawful, they can disobey it, but they disobey at their peril," VanLandingham said.

VanLandingham warned that the lawmakers' video omitted this legal nuance: orders can be unlawful without meeting the extreme "manifestly unlawful" standard, and following such orders may not result in criminal liability even if the policy is questionable. She urged retired generals and senior leaders to provide clearer, law-based guidance rather than political exhortations that simply tell troops to "disobey" without specifying which commands would meet the legal threshold.

Coretta Johnson Gray, a former Air Force attorney, emphasized that the duty to disobey illegal orders is longstanding, but she said current political tensions are creating anxiety among service members who normally operate without second-guessing routine orders. She advised troops to seek clarification through the chain of command and to consult military chaplains or JAG officers when faced with uncertain commands.

Several interviewees also raised alarms about the politicization of military legal counsel. One of the first acts attributed to incoming Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was the removal or demotion of senior legal advisors across service branches, prompting concerns that the JAG corps could be losing experienced lawyers. "It's important to have good people who have integrity in these positions," Gray said. "If you get rid of everyone who could even question, you really got a problem."

Kevin Courtney, an attorney with the Military Law Center and a former Marine captain, warned that the public debate risks splitting the ranks along political lines. "If obedience to orders becomes tied to political identity — for example, if some troops follow the lawmakers' guidance while others follow the president — the cohesion and neutrality of the armed forces could fracture," he said. He reiterated that every order is presumed lawful, with narrow exceptions for obvious criminal commands.

Senior veterans and military lawyers called for active-duty leaders to reaffirm their oath to the Constitution and to preserve political neutrality, arguing that protecting service members requires clear, principled leadership rather than partisan attacks or vague public admonitions.