A political firestorm has erupted after former President Donald Trump called for the arrest of several Democratic lawmakers, accusing them of “seditious behavior” for reminding U.S. troops of their constitutional duty to refuse illegal orders.
The controversy centers on a social media video featuring a group of Democratic senators and representatives, all of whom are military veterans. In the video, they told service members and intelligence officials that they are obligated to follow only lawful commands, a principle rooted in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Trump’s “Lock Them Up” Response on Truth Social
Responding to the video, President Trump unleashed a series of posts on his Truth Social platform. In them, he labeled the lawmakers Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) as “traitors to our country.”
“Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!!” Trump wrote in one post.
His rhetoric quickly escalated. In a subsequent message, he declared their behavior “punishable by DEATH,” even though U.S. law stipulates a maximum prison sentence for seditious conspiracy, not the death penalty.
What Sparked the Conflict? The “Illegal Orders” Video
The Democrats’ video served as a direct warning about what they called “threats to our Constitution” from “right here at home.” While not naming Trump explicitly, the message was a clear response to his administration’s broad interpretation of presidential power.
The core of their message was a repetition of a fundamental military tenet: “You can refuse illegal orders.” This refers to Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which requires service members to obey only lawful orders. This legal principle protects troops from being compelled to commit war crimes or perform illegal acts, such as targeting civilians or engaging in domestic law enforcement outside of authorized limits.
Administration and GOP Back Trump, Justice Department Threatens “Close Look”
The White House and its allies swiftly backed the President’s stance.
- Stephen Miller, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, called the video a “general call for rebellion” and plainly stated, “It is insurrection.”
- House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump’s posts, calling the Democrats’ actions “wildly inappropriate” while suggesting the President was merely “defining the crime of sedition.”
- Most notably, Todd Blanche, the current Deputy Attorney General, told Fox News the Justice Department would take a “close look” at whether the lawmakers broke any laws. Blanche, who was previously Trump’s personal attorney, called the video “disgusting and inappropriate.”
Veteran Lawmakers Push Back, Citing Their Service and the Law
The Democratic legislators, drawing on their military backgrounds, stood firm.
Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, defended the video. He pointed to Trump’s past comments, including suggestions to use the military against protesters and at polling places.
“I don’t want to wait until that happens to remind our troops of this obligation because then it will be too late,” Crow stated. “Donald Trump has put them in very difficult positions… so we are reminding folks about what the Uniform Code of military justice says.”
Sen. Mark Kelly, a former Navy combat pilot and astronaut, delivered a sharp rebuke to Stephen Miller on social media: “I got shot at serving our country in combat, and I was there when your boss sent a violent mob to attack the Capitol. I know the difference between defending our Constitution and an insurrection, even if you don’t.”
In a joint statement, the group highlighted the stark nature of Trump’s reaction: “What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law.”
The Legal Reality: Is This Sedition?
Legal experts were quick to note that the Democrats’ speech is almost certainly protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. has not had laws criminalizing mere “seditious” speech since the Sedition Act was repealed in 1920. The modern “seditious conspiracy” statute requires a conspiracy to use force against the government, which is not applicable to a public statement.
The confrontation sets the stage for a profound constitutional debate, pitting the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief against the sworn duty of every service member to the Constitution itself.
