On a pivotal night in late November, an enlightening exchange unfolded on CNN’s NewsNight involving former DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa. During a debate with Republican Scott Jennings, Hinojosa inadvertently revealed a significant truth: President Trump has not issued any illegal orders to the military. This admission came as Jennings pressed her about a video featuring six Democrat lawmakers, which critics claim encourages service members to defy potential orders from Trump under the guise of defending democracy.
Jennings challenged Hinojosa’s assertions directly, asking pointedly about the implications of the video. “Stop what?” he queried when Hinojosa suggested the video called for military personnel to pause actions against Trump. Her response—that it urged them to stop speaking out—highlighted a contradiction. Jennings quickly turned this on its head, questioning the basis of her claim that Trump had issued unlawful orders. “You can’t name ONE! And NO ONE ELSE can!” he asserted.
Hinojosa’s immediate backtrack—“I’m not saying there is!”—was significant. It underscored the realization for many viewers that the video was not a serious call to uphold military integrity but rather a political tactic. “We knew a Democrat would let the truth slip out eventually,” observed one social media user, capturing the prevailing sentiment that Jennings had delivered a pivotal rebuttal.
The crux of the controversy lies in the video released by the six Democrat lawmakers. Although they have not been publicly identified, the group’s message contained a subtle warning regarding potential unlawful military commands traced back to Trump’s presidency. Yet the entire premise faced scrutiny. Critics viewed the phrase “unconstitutional orders” as a way to instill fear among military ranks, especially in light of the absence of concrete examples of wrongdoing during Trump’s administration.
Legal experts agree this messaging may actually damage the trust necessary for the military’s cohesion. Members of the armed forces are trained rigorously to discern lawful commands, with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) providing clear frameworks for refusing illegal orders. Jennings emphasized this fact, stating, “They are trained in this from day one. The notion that a video from a handful of politicians is needed to remind them is… patronizing.”
This brings us to another layer—the contradiction in approach by some of these lawmakers. Critics pointed out past votes against military pay increases or defense appropriations, with several of the featured Democrats opposing a 5.2% pay raise in 2022. Their stance has led many service members and veterans to voice their discontent. A Navy veteran bluntly stated, “They don’t support us when it counts. But they want to use us as pawns in their political theater.”
Such actions reveal a deeper concern about political discourse. The tendency to accuse Trump of unlawful behavior without robust evidence threatens to complicate the relationship between military and civilian authority. A 2024 RAND Corporation study indicated that while 78% of enlisted personnel trust their leaders concerning order legitimacy, that figure drops to 62% when they encounter politically charged messaging. This shift suggests that diluting the boundary between lawful and unlawful commands can indeed impact unit morale and cohesion.
The interview’s dynamic illuminated a strategic flaw in the Democrat’s video campaign. Hinojosa’s admission ran counter to the video’s intent, reflecting an attempt to paint Trump with a broad brush while offering no factual backing. Jennings’ insistence on specifics highlighted this gap, exposing the argument’s weaknesses and raising questions about its legitimacy. “Name one illegal order,” he pressed. The very absence of an answer revealed a tactic likely designed to deflect scrutiny.
As Hinojosa struggled to navigate her own statements, she ultimately pivoted to defense of free speech; however, this fell flat against her earlier claims. “He wants members of Congress to be silenced on speaking out against Trump,” implied an urgency not reflected in the video’s content, which suggested military orders should be met with skepticism absent concrete incidents.
During an election cycle, such speculative narratives can skew public perception and trust. Attempts to frame Trump as authoritarian in military contexts lack legal validity and can contribute to further division. The military retains a rare bipartisan trust; politicizing its actions through speculative narratives could erode this remaining bond.
The November 26 segment serves as a striking reminder of the need for concrete evidence in political discourse. In an environment where facts meet rhetoric, the challenges faced by political groups become evident. Whether there will be a reconsideration of the original video remains to be seen. But as Jennings articulated, the reality speaks volumes: “You can’t name one. And no one else can.”
"*" indicates required fields
