On November 18, 2025, a group of Democratic lawmakers stirred controversy by releasing a video calling on U.S. military and intelligence personnel to resist illegal orders. This video set off a political firestorm, with President Donald Trump swiftly accusing them of sedition. He labeled their actions as “punishable by DEATH,” leading to investigations by federal agencies including the FBI and the Department of Defense.
The video features six individuals—Senator Mark Kelly, Senator Elissa Slotkin, and several representatives—each with military or national security backgrounds. In it, Kelly emphasizes, “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution,” highlighting that the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires military personnel to disobey unlawful orders. Despite these clarifications, Trump described their message as inciting insubordination, portraying the lawmakers as traitors.
FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed that the agency was reaching out to the lawmakers regarding interviews. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has referred Kelly’s comments to the Navy for further assessment. The Pentagon is demanding a full briefing on the situation, indicating the high stakes surrounding this issue.
Responses from other lawmakers have split primarily along party lines. Four House Democrats condemned the actions taken against their colleagues, claiming Trump was weaponizing law enforcement for political intimidation. Meanwhile, some Republicans, like Senator Lisa Murkowski, defended the lawmakers’ right to speak out. Murkowski said, “Accusing them of treason and sedition for rightly pointing out that servicemembers can refuse illegal orders is reckless and flat-out wrong.”
The conversation around the video raises vital questions about the intersection of military conduct and the limits of political discourse. Critics point to instances during Trump’s presidency where orders were given that might have crossed legal lines, emphasizing that the lawmakers aim to remind service members of their rights. Slotkin remarked, “We’ve heard concerns from troops directly… What if I’m ordered to do something that I don’t know if I should do?”
As the situation unfolds, it is clear that the lawmakers involved are facing increased threats, exacerbated by Trump’s statements which have fueled reactions among his supporters. This reality highlights the tension in contemporary political discourse and the risks associated with statements made in the public sphere.
While the investigations continue without formal charges against the lawmakers, the incident casts a shadow over the delicate balance between civilian authority and military conduct. The Supreme Court has yet to clarify the legal boundaries of political speech pertaining to national security, leaving the door open for continued debate.
The stakes remain high as both parties navigate this evolving conflict. Lawmakers’ assurances to service members about their constitutional rights contrast sharply with the rhetoric employed by Trump, revealing stark divisions in how political expression is interpreted. The outcome of this confrontation may have lasting implications, not only for the individuals directly involved but also for the broader national dialogue surrounding authority, freedom of speech, and the military’s role in our democracy.
"*" indicates required fields
