Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and her cohort of Democratic politicians have sparked controversy with a video urging military personnel to disobey President Donald Trump’s orders, labeling them as “illegal.” This production featured other veterans, including Senators Mark Kelly and Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow. In their message, they assert, “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.” However, the video lacks concrete examples of any alleged illegal orders issued by Trump.
When pressed by ABC News’ Martha Raddatz about whether she believes the President has issued illegal orders, Slotkin acknowledged, “To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal.” Yet, she hinted at potential concerns regarding Trump’s military strikes against drug-running vessels, suggesting these actions could be questionable.
Trump’s authority for the strikes comes from an executive order issued early in his presidency, which designated certain drug cartels, like Tren de Aragua, as “foreign terrorist organizations.” This classification allows for decisive military action, as Trump emphasized in announcing the results of a strike that killed alleged terrorists engaged in smuggling narcotics. According to him, these operations were necessary to protect U.S. national security.
The legal ground for the President’s military actions hinges on the Constitution. Article II empowers the commander in chief to undertake military strikes without explicit Congressional authorization. Historically, U.S. presidents have engaged in military operations without formal declarations of war. Indeed, there have been only five such declarations in U.S. history, while numerous conflicts, including the Vietnam War and various military operations in the Middle East, were conducted without them.
Slotkin’s concerns extend to the use of the National Guard in American cities. She identified this deployment as a potentially unlawful order but didn’t provide compelling evidence to undermine Trump’s legal authority. Past presidents have similarly deployed the National Guard during domestic crises, a practice upheld after judicial challenges.
In the grand scheme, Slotkin’s assertions appear more political theater than a substantial legal argument. Her statements suggest that Trump is acting unlawfully, but evidence supporting such claims is thin. Historical precedents indicate that his military actions fall within the powers granted to the presidency, and no current legislation limits these actions concerning Venezuela. Thus, Slotkin’s allegations lack the weight to challenge the legality of Trump’s military orders effectively.
"*" indicates required fields
