In a recent viral video circulating on social media, six Democratic lawmakers can be seen warning US military personnel to refuse “illegal orders” from President Donald Trump. As FoxNews.com reported, “The one-minute video, posted by Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., and viewed more than 1.6 million times, features six lawmakers invoking their past service while telling members of the military and intelligence community that ‘the threats to our Constitution come directly from here.’
It is dramatic, ominous and delivered with an air of solemn responsibility. But it fails the most basic test of leadership and legality: it does not cite any illegal order – past, present or expected. Not one.
SIX DEMOCRATS ENCOURAGE MILITARY MEMBERS TO ‘REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS’ IN VIRAL VIDEO; HEGSETH RESPONDS
The lawmakers who appear in the video – Sens. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and Reps. Maggie Goodlander, D.N.H.; Jason Crow, D-Colo.; Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa. – rely heavily on their military or national security background.
Their core message is clear: “If something is illegal, you can refuse it. You must refuse it.” The implication is unmistakable: the commander in chief is about to issue illegal orders, and American forces must prepare to resist him. But when pressed publicly, none of the lawmakers raised a single example of an illegal order or cited any statute that the president is alleged to have violated.
This is political theater masquerading as military ethics – and it is dangerously irresponsible.
I say this as someone who has spent his life in the military profession. I served as an Airborne Ranger infantry officer in four U.S. Army divisions on three continents. I later spent more than twenty years as a contractor with the Army Staff on operations and global security cooperation. While in uniform, I also served as Inspector General at the Pentagon, where I investigated allegations of serious ethical misconduct in our military.
Members of the Army National Guard in formation. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Spc. Matthew A. Foster.)
As an Army Major at Fort Benning Infantry Center, I was the lead instructor for leadership and ethics – specifically teaching junior officers how to distinguish between lawful and unlawful orders and how to uphold their constitutional responsibilities in our republican form of government.
DEM VETERANS BREAK SILENCE AFTER VIRAL VIDEO CAUSES BACKBACK ON SOCIAL MEDIA: ‘FRUSTRATED’
From that perspective, the message in this video is not a public service – it is a political provocation. It seeks to cast routine obedience in the chain of command as inherently suspect and condition soldiers to believe that orders from this president are likely to be illegal. That’s not ethics. It’s partiality.
Let’s be clear about the real standard. Every US military member has an absolute duty to refuse an obviously illegal order. This principle is deeply rooted in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Nuremberg precedent. Orders to commit war crimes – such as deliberately attacking civilians – must be refused. This is not controversial; it is taught in basic training, ROTC, West Point, OCS, and any professional military training within the Corps.
But the presumption within the profession of arms – the foundation of healthy civil-military relations – is obedience to lawful orders issued through the chain of command. Civilian control of the military depends on it. Without that discipline, the American republic cannot function. The moment troops start treating political disagreements as legal violations, discipline breaks down and the military becomes an arbiter of domestic politics.
SIX DEMOCRATS ENCOURAGE MILITARY MEMBERS TO ‘REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS’ IN VIRAL VIDEO; HEGSETH RESPONDS
That’s the real danger of this video: it introduces doubt into the minds of junior soldiers where clarity is needed. It encourages troops to interpret political rhetoric as legal reality. It bypasses the established processes – judge advocate general, inspector general channels, legal counsel – that already exist to address questionable orders. The video does not mention these institutions because its purpose is not to strengthen legal integrity, but to undermine confidence in a certain commander in chief – President Donald Trump.
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attend a ceremony commemorating the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Thursday, September 11, 2025, at the Pentagon in Washington. (AP/Evan Vucci)
There is also a legal concern. Federal law – specifically 18 USC § 2387 – prohibits attempts to undermine the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the United States Armed Forces. Members of Congress have wide latitude in their speech, but when they explicitly warn service members—not the public, not other lawmakers, but troops—to brace for potentially illegal presidential orders without citing a single illegal act, they step into a gray zone that our Founders never intended as elected officials.
This reporting also uses military references for partisan purposes. These lawmakers are speaking like veterans, subtly suggesting that “real professionals” already believe this president is a danger. But veterans do not hold collective political views, and prior service does not give anyone—members of Congress or otherwise—the authority to prejudge the legitimacy of future military orders.
If these lawmakers truly believe that a specific policy or directive is unconstitutional—whether it concerns border operations, anti-cartel action, or foreign deployments—they have the tools of Congress at their disposal. They can write legislation, hold hearings, limit funding, subpoena witnesses, or challenge executive actions in court. What they cannot do ethically is directly lobby the troops to oppose the commander in chief on the basis of hypothetical misconduct.
The US military remains the most trusted institution in the country precisely because it stays out of party politics. That self-discipline is not automatic; it requires elected leaders to refrain from involving the military in presidential disputes. Undermining that principle for political advantage is foolhardy.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The duty to disobey clearly illegal orders is real. But the greater duty—the one that preserves our constitutional order—is obedience to lawful authority, regardless of which party occupies the Oval Office. Politicians who blur that distinction are not protecting democracy; they are eroding it.
Our troops deserve clarity, not chaos. Our constitutional system depends on civilian control, not partisan interference. And American leaders — especially those who once wore the uniform — should know better.
CLICK HERE TO ROBERT MAGINNIS
