Since six Democratic lawmakers recorded a video warning our armed forces that they can ignore unlawful orders, President Trump and his minions are crying foul, claiming sedition (it’s like January 6th never happened).  These former military members, now electeds, did not tell the military to ignore lawful orders, just unlawful ones which is something our armed forces reinforces during basic training.

I came across a wonderful essay on this from Larry Walsh, a technology writer I’ve known for years and he’s given me permission to republish this.

 

When Orders Are Unlawful, Disobedience Is Duty

A reminder rooted in U.S. military law and tradition: Service members are obligated to reject illegal commands, even from the president.

By Larry Walsh

I’ve told this story many times because it’s a lesson worth repeating. I was a 17-year-old recruit going through basic training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, home of the U.S. Army field artillery. Out on the red plains during M-16 qualification, I was marking a fellow trainee’s scorecard on a clipboard nailed to a cut-down telephone pole behind the foxhole.

Between rounds, a drill sergeant — I can’t remember his name nearly 40 years later — kept snapping the metal clip on the board. Snap. Snap. Snap. Then he turned to me and said, “Son, put your fingers there.”

I looked at him, unsure. We were conditioned to obey. These instructors controlled our daily lives and could physically run us into the ground for the slightest infraction. Saying no wasn’t an option.

“Stop,” he said. “That was an unlawful order. You don’t have to obey unlawful orders.”

It was a simple lesson with far-reaching implications. After World War II, German soldiers claimed they committed atrocities because they were following orders. U.S. troops involved in the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War offered the same defense. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, following orders does not excuse illegal actions, nor does disobeying an unlawful order — even one originating from the president — constitute a crime.

That principle is at the center of a recent video released by six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds: Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), and Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), and Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.). Their message to service members was straightforward: they are not obligated to carry out orders that violate U.S. or international law.

The intended audience was likely the public, not the military. The subtext was that President Donald Trump is issuing directives that could place uniformed personnel in situations where their legal obligations and their consciences diverge.

Trump reacted with characteristic hostility. In posts on Truth Social, he called the lawmakers “traitors,” labeled the video “seditious behavior,” and demanded they be “arrested and put on trial,” saying such actions are “punishable by death.” Even if rhetorical, calling for executions of elected officials for articulating settled military doctrine crosses a line, particularly coming from a sitting president.

 

Republican leaders criticized the video but acknowledged the Democrats’ right to speak. House Majority Leader Mike Johnson dismissed Trump’s comments as hyperbole and insisted he didn’t mean them, a familiar pattern of minimization rather than constraint.

At the same time, the administration has ordered U.S. forces to sink boats and kill suspected drug smugglers in the waters off Venezuela and Colombia. Critics, including several international law specialists and foreign governments, argue these actions constitute extrajudicial killings that violate international law. The United Nations has urged investigations. Some Latin American governments have scaled back intelligence cooperation, citing concerns about the legality and proportionality of U.S. operations.

Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have suggested the U.S. military has been operating under excessive restraint and should adopt a more aggressive posture. Advocates of this approach argue that decisive action deters criminal activity. Opponents say bypassing rules of engagement undermines U.S. law, military ethics, and global legitimacy.

The six Democrats say they released their video because service members have been asking how to respond to potentially unlawful orders. Reminding troops of their obligations under the Constitution and the UCMJ is not sedition; it is a core component of military professionalism. The president is commander-in-chief, but authority is neither absolute nor insulated from law.

Trump is fortunate that the United States possesses enough geopolitical leverage to avoid immediate accountability for actions that many legal observers contend could rise to the level of war crimes. But those actions place American service members in untenable positions — exactly what the lawmakers were warning against.

The underlying message: no president, regardless of party or popularity, may order unlawful violence and expect blind obedience. The obligation to refuse unlawful orders is not an act of rebellion; it is a duty embedded in American law and military tradition.