The recent skirmish on CNN between Abby Phillip and Terry Schilling highlights the escalating tension in American politics surrounding military law and executive authority. This clash came on the heels of a provocative video shared by Democratic veterans, reminding service members of their duty to refuse illegal orders. The Democrats intended to reinforce legal obligations, but former President Donald Trump reacted vehemently, framing their message as an act of sedition.
In his posts on Truth Social, Trump used alarming language, accusing military veterans in Congress—specifically, six Democratic lawmakers—of treason. He asserted that their reminders about lawful disobedience amounted to “seditious behavior” and demanded severe punishment. “These are disloyal TRAITORS whose motives and actions must be punished accordingly,” he wrote. This rhetoric is particularly chilling, raising questions about the nature of dissent and the boundaries of lawful conduct within the military.
Schilling, representing conservative perspectives, echoed Trump’s denunciation, suggesting the video was intended to stir dissent against the commander-in-chief. He described it as “a wink and a nod to resist Trump.” Phillip firmly contested this narrative, pressing Schilling to clarify whether it is sedition to encourage adherence to the law. Her pointed inquiry—a straightforward yes or no—aimed to dismantle the heavy accusations that now loom over the video’s intent. “You’re accusing them of a capital offense. That requires real evidence, not political anger,” she asserted, calling attention to the serious implications of Schilling’s claims.
At the heart of this debate is a fundamental legal principle embedded in military law: service members must refuse orders that are clearly unlawful, including those that violate the Constitution. Legal scholars have dismissed Trump’s assertions as unfounded. Constitutional expert Carlton Larson noted that the situation does not meet the legal criteria for sedition, emphasizing a lack of evidence for any violence or conspiracy. This legal lens reveals how critical it is to understand the nuances of military obligations amid political conflicts.
Retired Colonel Geoffrey Corn bolstered this view, arguing that the obligation to disobey unlawful orders is a cornerstone of military ethics, not a radical rallying cry. “This isn’t some radical Democratic idea—they’re repeating what JAG officers are trained to say,” Corn explained. His perspective underscores the long-standing legal and ethical framework guiding military personnel, which is now entangled in political interpretations.
Despite the clarity provided by legal experts, Schilling and other Trump supporters continue to frame the video as politically charged sabotage. “You can’t separate this from the context,” Schilling said, suggesting that the timing of the video was deliberate and designed to undermine Trump. Phillip challenged this narrative, pointing out that the veterans did not mention Trump or directly challenge his authority. They simply reiterated the military’s legal obligations, a stance she argues should not be misconstrued as sedition.
The conversation expanded to encompass concerns about the broader implications of such rhetoric. Military personnel constantly navigate the delicate balance of obeying orders while upholding their constitutional duty. David Luban, a law professor, raised serious alarms about using threats of severe punishment for political ends, stating, “Using the threat of death for political retaliation is as extreme as it gets.” This statement encapsulates the unprecedented nature of the current political climate, where dissent is increasingly framed as treason.
The episode serves as a reminder of the potential consequences for civilian-military relations and signals uneasy territory when elected officials, particularly veterans, issue statements on legal obligations. Rep. Jason Crow emphasized, “We’re not telling people to defy the president. We’re reminding service members of their oath—to the Constitution, not to any individual.” This distinction carries weight, especially in an environment where political motivations can overshadow legal responsibilities.
The reactions to this incident have been swift and revealing. A viral tweet following the CNN segment claimed, “CNN’s Abby Phillip DEFENDS Democrats’ calls for insurrection and sedition.” The intense pushback against Phillip’s defense illustrates the polarized lens through which many view political discourse today. In contrast, Phillip pointed out the constitutional checks and balances that allow Congress members to operate within their rights. “If you’re a member of Congress? You do have a right to undermine the president—legally and constitutionally,” she stated, emphasizing the separation of powers essential to American governance.
This confrontation is symptomatic of broader ideological divides, where straightforward legal principles about lawful orders are reinterpreted as acts of disloyalty. As political narratives shift and evolve, the definitions of duty and loyalty are being contested like never before. The outcome of this debate may hinge less on established facts and more on what segments of the public choose to accept as truth.
"*" indicates required fields
