Miller’s Accusations Raise Tensions Over Military Orders and Constitutional Allegiance
Former White House adviser Stephen Miller has created waves with his recent remarks on Fox News, accusing six Democratic lawmakers of instigating “insurrection.” This accusation follows the release of a video where these lawmakers appeal to military members and intelligence officers to refuse what they deem illegal orders from President Donald Trump.
“It is insurrection. Plainly, directly. Without question,” Miller declared, calling for the lawmakers to resign and never return to public life. His reaction reflects deep-rooted concerns among Trump supporters regarding the implications of such statements on the military and the authority of the presidency.
The video in question, titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” features Senators and Representatives with military or intelligence backgrounds, including Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, urging service members to uphold their constitutional oath. They argue that the integrity of the Constitution is at risk, implying that members of the armed forces have not only the right but the duty to refuse unlawful orders. “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders; you must refuse illegal orders,” they assert in the video.
This message quickly gained traction online, reaching over 5.7 million views shortly after its release. It emerged in the context of two significant legislative proposals aimed at limiting presidential powers—Slotkin’s No Troops in Our Streets Act and Crow’s War Powers Continuing Resolution. These proposals seek to restrict domestic troop deployments and military actions that lack congressional authorization.
Miller condemned the video as a challenge to the established military hierarchy. “Saying that you have the right and DUTY and obligation to defy orders of the Commander-in-Chief?! It’s a general call for rebellion,” he stated emphatically, suggesting that it threatens the foundation of the military’s chain of command.
Alongside Miller, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth criticized the lawmakers on social media, labeling them as suffering from “Stage 4 TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).” This rhetoric underscores the sharp division in perspectives regarding military conduct under a Trump administration that has faced scrutiny for its use of force, particularly regarding the deployment of National Guard troops in several cities and military actions in Venezuela.
In defense of the video and its constitutional merit, Slotkin, who has experience as a CIA agent and Iraq veteran, responded to Miller by asserting the validity of their claims. “This is the law. Passed down from our Founding Fathers,” she stated, emphasizing the imperative for military personnel to uphold their commitments to the Constitution rather than loyalty to a single president.
Slotkin’s stance is supported by Rep. Goodlander, who acknowledged the precarious position troops face due to directives from political leaders. “We stand with you at a moment when you have been put in a terrible position by a president and a secretary of defense who are testing the boundaries of the law,” she stated, reinforcing the call for military members to be vigilant in their duties.
However, the lawmakers’ coordinated approach has drawn significant backlash. Critics from the Republican side argue that their suggestions can undermine civilian control of the military and potentially incite disorder. Jim MacEachern of the New Hampshire Republican Party dismissed Goodlander’s message as “reckless and beneath the office she holds,” equating it implicitly to treasonous conduct against the U.S.
This controversy raises questions about the legality of military orders and the broader implications for military-civil relations. While military personnel are bound to reject unlawful orders, defining legality in real-time poses challenges. The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides protections for those who refuse illegal commands. Still, the lawmakers’ preemptive declaration of potential illegality lacks specific context, complicating the issue further.
A former judge advocate general expressed reservations about the suggestion that future orders from the Commander-in-Chief could be automatically dismissed as illegitimate. “That undermines chain of command and invites selective obedience,” he warned, signaling potential ramifications for military cohesion and discipline.
Miller and his supporters fear that the video marks a critical moment that could deepen distrust within the armed forces toward their leaders. “These six Democrats are laying the groundwork for a constitutional crisis,” Miller stated, framing their actions as anything but patriotic.
Legislative efforts in support of the video persist, notably with Slotkin’s bill aimed at restricting presidential authority over military deployments. While these legislative measures face challenges in a politically divided Congress, they emphasize an urgent dialogue about constitutional limits on presidential power, particularly in times of crisis.
As tensions escalate, it remains uncertain how this situation will unfold. Both parties seem prepared for a prolonged struggle centered around the authority of the military and the interactions between elected officials and armed forces.
In the closing words of the video, echoing a call from naval history, “Don’t give up the ship” resonates strongly. With the political tides shifting, the stakes are high as the nation braces for looming conflicts in both the legal and electoral arenas about who commands the loyalty of America’s soldiers and under what authority.
"*" indicates required fields
