Scott Jennings delivered a pointed critique during a recent interview, targeting Democratic lawmakers for urging military personnel to question orders they might label illegal if Donald Trump regains the presidency. Speaking on the PBD Podcast on November 21, Jennings emphasized the potential dangers of this political maneuvering, calling it hypocritical and harmful to military stability.
He remarked, “It’s not good to treat the military like pawns,” summing up the gravity of the situation. Jennings called out the irony of Democrats who previously shut down the government for an extended period and failed to pay military personnel, now using them as props for political narratives. This highlights a troubling trend of leveraging service members in a partisan context.
The issue stemmed from a video by Democratic lawmakers, all veterans, suggesting that service members should prepare to disobey “illegal orders” under a possible Trump administration. However, they did not clarify which orders might be considered unlawful, only invoking fears of authoritarianism. Jennings critiqued this ambiguity, pointing out that when the lawmakers were pressed to name any specific illegal orders, they could not provide clear examples. “None of them can name an illegal order!” he stated, reinforcing his argument that the intention was more about creating a media narrative than addressing genuine concerns.
Jennings defended Trump’s furious reaction to the video, particularly Trump’s assertion that these lawmakers should face severe consequences for what he termed “seditious behavior.” Critics of Trump have historically viewed such rhetoric as authoritarian, but Jennings asserted that the strong response was warranted given the political context. He explained, “This rhetoric is designed to foment insurrection against the commander-in-chief and violence against the commander-in-chief.”
This incident recalls the deeper issues surrounding the government shutdown that Jennings mentioned. From October 1 to November 13, 2023, a budget impasse left many federal workers, including active-duty military, furloughed or unpaid. Many of the lawmakers now calling for military disobedience were also instrumental in this situation, adding layers to Jennings’ charge of hypocrisy. “You can’t claim to honor military men and women while simultaneously refusing to fund them and then trotting them out in political stunts,” he remarked, underlining the contradictory nature of the Democrats’ actions.
On the podcast, Jennings did not shy away from his disdain for the Democratic message, labeling it “complete and utter bulls**t.” He detailed a conversation with Rep. Jason Crow, where Jennings pressed for specifics on the alleged illegal orders. Crow’s vague responses only served to reinforce Jennings’ stance that the accusations were unfounded.
In military law, the threshold for refusing an order is set high, requiring that an order be manifestly illegal and pose an immediate threat to law or conscience. Jennings highlighted that the blanket accusations of illegal orders are an irresponsible politicization of a complex issue and could undermine the principle of civilian control over the military—an essential element of American democracy. He warned, “You’re putting enlisted men and women in a situation where they have to question the chain of command based on media fear-mongering.”
The rarity of calls for military disobedience in American politics adds even more weight to Jennings’ concerns. Historically, even during intense conflicts like the Iraq War, few lawmakers encouraged service members to ignore orders. This new trend raises severe questions about military loyalty and operational readiness, concerns echoed by many national security experts.
Jennings views this incident as indicative of a larger pattern of delegitimization surrounding Trump since his 2016 campaign. He claimed, “They never accepted his presidency as real,” pointing to the ongoing impeachment efforts and investigations as part of an established narrative aimed at undermining Trump’s leadership.
The Biden administration’s silence on this matter signifies a reluctance to confront the potential repercussions of this rhetoric on military personnel. Jennings warned that such silence sends a damaging message to troops, stating, “If you want to talk about respect for the troops, start by not asking them to pick sides in a political war.”
As the 2025 election cycle approaches, the implications of this new discourse on presidential authority and military obedience could resonate well beyond current events. As partisan divisions deepen, concerns grow over the future of American democracy and the precedents being established today.
"*" indicates required fields
